Croc

Turbo: I have said my piece, and Northie redirected the thread. If you want to continue, PM me...but I think at this point it should be dropped. Dodgefan: A CTS wagon IMO doesn't render the SRX redundant as the SRX is closer now to the current STS in pricing and target demographics...as well as offering a higher driving position. My mother loved wagons until she got her XC90...now if it isn't high up she isn't interested!

"Global Warming" is a huge myth. The planet isn't warming due to man...geologically, we are still exiting an ice age. No $h! the climate will gradually get warmer. What man is doing is eating away the ozone layer, which causes greater incidences of skin cancer.

Woops, Northie, I was replying before you posted yours. Agreed...back to the CTS: It rocks! ETA: As far as the wagon goes, am I the only one having a hard time picturing what it will look like? I hope it is sportier than the BMW and M-B wagons (which IMO are rather staid-looking) but I also don't want something too ridiculous-looking like the Magnum. Cadillac has a somewhat aggressive design vocabulary, yet the wagon needs to convey elegance. If Caddy designers can pull this off, I will be very impressed.

Actually, there is quite a bit to back up what I have said. If you search back through the forums, you will know I have always said the GTO was too jellybean and dated-looking...but that doesn't change the fact that the people this vehicle was aimed at, nostalgic baby boomers with $35k to blow on a Pontiac coupe, weren't that nostalgic when the new car paid zero homage to the old. Retro cars are supposed to be nostalgic. VW did a New Beetle that was a thoroughly modern vehicle, yet it still captured the nostalgia because they didn't slap "New Beetle" on a car looking like a Passat. GM took one of its most valuable names with a lot of strong history and nostalgia and put it on a car that looked like a RWD Grand Prix coupe. That was the mistake. The problem was that you were stereotyping me and my friends, while putting on some kind of false air. You rubbed me the wrong way buddy when you claimed without knowing anyone I associate with that we are too stupid to know there's better stuff than Ramen. Not cool. Anyway, how is the truth "damaging" your reputation? A lot of people on this forum (the vast majority, actually) do not drive nice cars. There's nothing wrong with driving a vehicle that isn't brand new. I even said that in the last post. It sounds to me like you are the insecure one here, especially with the spoon-fed line. I have NOT been given everything I have ever wanted, I have worked in some very "unglamorous" (but fun) jobs, and growing up if I ever wanted something that was expensive, my parents made me do odd jobs and raise up a high percentage of the cost of the item because they wanted me to appreciate everything I got. And I do. You don't know me, so please don't act like it. My friends' parents are mostly well-off. My friends are actually pretty deep into student loans. Honestly, I don't get where you are coming from at all on this. Whatever cars I may buy in the future will be bought for ME, not to prove anything to anyone else, or show people I have "arrived." No, Camaro was never second when it came to performance. It suffered from a lack of refinement and perceived quality. Turbo, interiors are not the end all be all, and I've never asserted that. Interiors do go a long way in conveying an image of quality, though. That has been my point all along: quality vs. price. The Camaro's plastic interior with unusable back seat and mouse fur carpeting did not give it the image of quality. The F-bodies were pure muscle cars for better and worse, and by that I mean they had all the performance possible, but refinement and quality of materials took a back seat in a major way. When Ford built a more refined and practical muscle car with their newer Mustangs and GM did nothing to update the F-bodies, the F-body popularity waned and the Mustang's soared.

And it has been fairly well-established that the biggest problem with the GTO was the expectation that came with the name. We have seen on multiple boards comments like "I won't buy it because it isn't a true GTO." The name was what was wrong...had it been called a Grand Prix or Tempest it prolly would've sold much better. As it was, though, it proved to be quite popular in California.Lexus isn't stylized. Lexus shares the same styling themes with the Toyota brand. The SC and Solara. Camry and ES. Avalon and GS. The styling vocabulary is the same...fairly bland, but strange proportions/details. Yet they sell well because the interiors are very plush and more than what consumers expect for the price. Honda makes another bunch of bland, sedately-styled cars with nice interiors. The new Civic is the only real design breakout from that company, but I wouldn't classify it as beautiful at all. VW/AUDI have the same styling vocabulary. Very minimalist. Elegant. But also very bland. Very few styling adventures in this company. MB does indeed take styling risks and has a cohesive lineup. This is a good example of a company that sells well and has some style. Of course, I would argue that these vehicles sell mostly on the mystic aura that comes with the tristar logo. The reliability has been in the trash for several years now, and even long-time M-B fans have started looking elsewhere. Well, looks like you thought wrong. Also, you don't need to be so snide. You make a lot of assumptions here, and frankly, most of them are pretty wrong. First of all, you assume they are all paying for their own cars. Not happening. Most of them get them from their parents, just like most of the kids at USC. This is Southern California we are talking about, you should know that--you live there! Does Torrey Pines mean anything to you? We also don't really eat Ramen, nor do we find it top notch. It isn't healthy. We tend to eat a lot of organic fruits and vegetables as well as sushi. SoCal is a pretty health-concious place...again you should know that since you live there. Why do you think style doesn't mean much?? HELLO! We are all men between the ages of 18 and 23...of COURSE we want the coolest-looking vehicle on The Row! Get a high paying job of their own? Yes...that is something most of us don't have (but not all). Needing to refine tastes? USC tends to be fairly wealthy since it is a private university. These people have plenty of good taste as they grew up around it. The last part of your paragraph I cannot disagree with, except that you use "we." Sorry, but I've ridden in your early 90s Nissan with the cracked windshield and dents. You drive a beater, and there's nothing wrong with that. I do object to the condescending attitude toward me and my brothers (whom you have never met) when you don't have anything nicer than a beater. It's a bit pretentious, to say the least. Duh, it was left to whither on the vine without any real improvement or refresh. Yea, it was a performance value, and it even commanded pretty good curbside real estate. But the perceived quality was missing, and Ford updated the Mustang. At similar pricing as the competition (coupled with a shrinking pony car market), the Camaro and Firebird were seen as second rate, and sales fell accordingly until the plug was pulled. The 1st-gen Escalade was a Yukon Denali with a Cadillac badge on it and some Zebrano thrown in for good measure. It sold because it was a Cadillac, not for any other reason. A consumer could get the exact same vehicle (save the badge) as a GMC Yukon Denali...why pay thousands more for the Escalade? Styling was the same...it had to be an emotional connection with the brand. The Thunderbird was generally considered by the buying public and automotive analysts as beautiful and an excellent design, hence why the concept was greenlighted for production fairly quickly. What killed it was its $50k price, about 10-15k over what most were willing to pay. The Phaeton is a gorgeous piece of machinery with an incredible interior. Unfortunately, the public's perception of the VW brand does not include luxury vehicles so it loses on the prestige factor. Coupled with the pricing it had (a little on the high side, but not too bad), no one bought it. Mostly, though, it was brand equity (or lack therof) that killed it. Most people I know can give a lot of reasons for liking something. Even more people can tell you why they DON'T like a car. You seem to be referencing a statistic in that last sentence...where's the source because you need some proof to convince me that Accord buyers rate style as an important factor in the decision. Quality? I can see that. Reputation? Most definitely. But styling? Unless they mean interior design, then I'm not really seeing it. The Accord is bland, but well-made.

Really... Take a business class or two and maybe you'll have a better idea of how the market works. Perceived quality vs. price almost always trumps styling when it comes to sales. Consumers respond favorably when they think they are getting some kind of deal, and are almost always willing to pay a premium for something perceived as premium.A good book you should read to understand this better is called Trading Up: The New American Luxury by Michael J. Silverstein. It has since been updated and retitled from when I purchased/read it and is now called Trading Up: Why Consumers Want New Luxury Goods... And How Companies Create Them. Excellent insight into marketing and consumer behavior.

Maybe someone can explain this to me...I saw 4G iPod Nano going for $250, while a 30G iPod Video is also for $250. Am I missing something here?

The styling of the SRX is in no way "bizarre." It has ONE bad angle, a rear 3/4 view. Bizarre is the X5 (Bangle-bizarre) and the RX350. Look at what vehicles sell...the ones with good/great interiors for the price. Unless a vehicle is Aztek-ugly, Americans do not care if it is attractive, bland, or a bit awkward. Beautiful styling might contribute to first-year sales, but after that the reviews, word-of-mouth, practicality and value play much bigger roles. If styling drove buying decisions as much as you claim, the first-gen Escalade wouldn't have been a hit, the Ford Thunderbird would have been a massive success, and the Phaeton wouldn't be going for 42k on dealer lots as we speak. The SRX is not losing its sales potential from an awkward rear 3/4 view, turbo...that's just ridiculous.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Quite possibly our next vehicle will be a Lambda--either an Acadia or Enclave.

Or if you're as directionally retarded as my sister is...

You're being facetious, right? Because the other option is woefully uninformed. It isn't unsafe, it isn't a distraction, and it is very, very useful. If you just glance at it every now and then you can find your bearing in an unfamiliar area. Say you are in a suburb with a maze of winding streets, 90% of which end in a cul-de-sac. Having a map displayed on a nav screen will help you find your way. What about going on a road trip? You're going to another town you're not at all familiar with...but you're going solo. What do you do? Well, print off driving directions on Google...but stopping to look at them or, worse, looking at them while driving is far more unsafe and distracting than a navigation system. Not only do you take your eyes off the road, but you have to look at the tiny little maps to find your bearing instead of having the "YOU ARE HERE" moving arrow on the navigation screen. You should only look at the screen briefly, like you would a side mirror. Are side mirrors dangerous because they can reflect random light and distract you, prompting you to stare at them too long and rear end someone? NO!How is turn-by-turn more useful? It has no map! How are fewer features more useful? That makes no sense... Finally, I see one person failing to mention a benefit of a nav system, only saying it jazzes up an interior...not every poster on here who likes nav systems. If you personally dislike nav, think it's overpriced or find it too distracting, that's fine. Don't order it for yourself or just get a prescription for Adderall XR. The rest of us who want one should be able to pay for one, especially if it's just a matter of swapping out one radio for another. GM has no excuse for offering it as an option.

They won't ticket you in your own driveway. Even in a public parking lot, you can turn it on as you're walking toward it. I doubt that would violate the law. It' nice to have as you can get it warmed up before you get in it (if in a driveway) or get things started as you're walking up to it. You get in, radio is already on, seat heaters starting up, etc.

No, it's closer to 80%. Jeez, don't you ever fact-check these days?

Disagree. Feedback is pretty much "report a bug" forum and that shouldn't be at the top.

Wait...no nav? Boo... Keyless start is unnecessary, but I'm sure it will have remote start which is competitive.

Are you including interior and exterior in "design"? Yes, the competition is more conservative, but another key point: this market is dominated by women. How many women would respond to a center stack that looks like a 1995 Compaq Presario and a dash/interior theme lifted from Captain Kirk's command post? The interior was just too off-putting, especially compared to the elegant lines and textures on the Volvo XC90. My mother was choosing between the two a few years ago and went with the Volvo because of the interior (and "it looks like a hearse"). But she also found the front of the Volvo a bit weird, and liked the SRX's LED tails (she's a safety fiend).

Only because Dolce & Gabbana never uses the low-grade cotten Hanes uses. Brands only matter to the extent of the quality/reputation of quality. That's how some brands are cheaper and lower-rent than others. If you are talking about literally the same exact shirt with the same Hanes quality that just happens to have a D&G tag and is sold at a D&G price...well reputation of D&G quality might help it sell some, but I think it would be by and large spurned by shoppers for being a step-down (or three) from the usual D&G look and feel. Call that the Cimarron Effect. There will always be status-seekers...but you need more than just status-seeking sheeple for something to catch on...because chances are status-seekers only want it because it just caught on.

The Altima just got redesigned.

Again, you ignore price. CTS gets away with it because it started under 30k. It got away with the interior. The (nearly) exact same interior design was then put in the crossover costing 10k more...for BASE. Have you ever priced an SRX? You go from 38k to 55k pretty quickly because the packages are pretty bundled and a little pricey. Even if you stick with the 6cyl.Here's the essential problem: The SRX is priced like an STS but looked and felt like a CTS. OK I finally finished reading your (unnecessarily long) post, and all I gotta say is chill. The exterior design was not the problem. YES, an exterior ropes people in. Then they see the window sticker, then they see the interior. Acura and Volvo sold more because the interior fit the price. You talk so much about "intended markets" but do you even know the SRX's (and XC90's, et al) intended customers? Female. Affluent. Upper-20s to early retirees. Kids/grandkids. Shops at Saks. Eats at Panera. That's the target market. The exterior designs are all perfectly inoffensive (for the most part). As you noted the pricing is all very similar. The thing about affluent people, though, is that they don't just spend money recklessly. They want to get quality. That's why they see nothing wrong with a $60 T-shirt, because they feel having the softest, highest-quality cotton is worth it. Were it a Hanes T-shirt going for $60, they wouldn't touch it. The SRX would have sold much better if it simply had the perceived quality to match (or exceed) the level expected for the price point. The XC90 has it. The RX330 has it. The ML-350 has it in spades (though reliability is actually abysmal). This is where the SRX underperformed and what broke the deal. The SRX had a $30k interior yet was being sold for (most popular options) $52k. That's ridiculous, and an incredible gap in perceived design quality that cost sales. A lot of sales. The target demographic buys luxury crossovers not on emotional design appeal, but on practicality, value, function, and content. It must not be perceived as ugly (none in the segment really are), it must serve a practical need without obvious compromises, the price cannot be inflated for what you get (conversely, cannot be too cheap either or it loses the luster of exclusivity), it must function and perform as intended on a daily basis, and being a luxury vehicle it must be offered with the same level of options as its competitors. SRX had good materials, but a terribly cheap-looking interior. Great materials cannot save a design disaster. As for exterior, the only other crossover on the market that can look more elegant than an SRX is the Tourag. The exterior wasn't the problem, but the interior was (at that price point). Yup. Red or Sandstone hide it best, though.

The first thing I do when I see a writer mention Renault helping GM is I look for a "how" to explain the assertion. I've yet to find one.

No. What killed the SRX was the cheap-looking 80s Star Trek throwback interior...with the price. Cadillac tried to price it too upmarket too quickly, without establishing the brand recognition first. Add in a third-rate interior design, it simply came across as $10 grand overpriced.The pricing is essentially the same now, but the new interior makes it worthy of all the Benjamins. The only issue with the exterior is that from some angles and in some colors the rear 3/4 can resemble a hearse due to the shape of the pillars and cargo area/third row windows. I personally don't see it, but enough people have remarked it in my presence that I'm lending credence to that viewpoint.

Pity about the SRX. The 2007 is truly best-in-class. Maybe they will reconsider if sales go up due to the redesign... What's the last MY the current generation will be produced?

I like everything except the front. It's too aggressive for a smash-hit midsized family sedan. Specifically, the grille is off. The top of it should be much lower and the bar should be much smaller. The bowtie may need to be relocated. Also, the lower grille is too angular. The center point is fine...but the sides should be less severe. As for the rear, I like it but, like the front, it is a tad overdone and severe. What would look much better: lose the vertical element of the outboard set...make them more Lucerne-like except extend them inward so that there is another red circle between the current red and white circles. The top line should taper inward still and the circles should be the same size as current. Badging should be relocated to below the taillamps. Basically a modern take on the successful early-90s rears.

That's fine...I just feel obligated to let anyone thinking of buying one know the potentially flawed design. I do believe they created a fuel tank shield retrofit later...and those supposedly improved the integrity of the tank greatly. Could the examples you've seen have had the shield retrofitted?