riviera74

Then GM should do an MCE and radically improve the interior. No need for a turbocharged 3L V8. A 3L V8T is silly in that you could probably do better with a 4L V8. Remember the Oldsmobile Aurora 4L V8, which was a Northstar derivative? A Vette with a 4L V8 DOHC is fine for those who would want one instead of the traditional 350ci V8, if said DOHC was that good in getting 400HP and flat torque curves at the right levels.

So the current Impala is still out of Oshawa while the MY2013 Impala will be built in Hamtramck. Two things: I suppose that is OK given that the MY13 will be a LWB Epsilon II. Second: What will they put in the Impala's place at Oshawa? A RWD sedan to go along with the Camaro?

I have to disagree. I am glad GM has largely moved away from requiring 91 octane on most (if not all) of their cars, including Cadillac. What benefit would using premium exists now (as opposed to 1999) given current engineering?

The progress of the Alpha program sounds a lot like what GM should guard against: too many (bad) ideas spoiling the whole thing. I was watching the latest Mazda commercial, and it implied that they know how to craft a small nimble vehicle while "behemoth automakers" (read GM and Ford) simply cannot. Unfortunately, Alpha was not as well-protected as the Corvette program, hence all the screw-ups and conflicting demands. Cadillac does not really need a 4cyl car unless it is worth driving (avoiding the curse of Cimarron). Alpha should actually be a Chevy (if not a Buick) and let Caddy have a somewhat larger car take care of the ATS.

Yep, I am referring to the RDX. The MDX would be an Enclave competitor, although the MDX seems smaller that the Enclave. I honestly thought Honda (which owns Acura) would have a better handle on weight and by extension, better MPGs than they actually do.

At a time when the new Colorado is coming out, where is the need for an El Camino? Seriously, there is a reason GM ditched the El Camino and Caballero in 1987: most likely that the compact pickups were (and are) simply more profitable.

I do have a question: who buys Chevy Heavy Duty trucks given that GMC trucks have those AND the "stripper" work trucks? That would be a great differentiation: Let Chevy have the normal trucks (whatever that means) and GMC can have the HD and work trucks, along with the Denali trim.

For everyone who wants to see GMC go the way of Oldsmobile in 2004 and Pontiac/Saturn and/or Saab in 2009: Why would you want to force GMC buyers to switch to Ford trucks? I distinctly remember reading on a website about two or three years ago that GMC buyers without GMC would switch to FORD trucks, not Chevy trucks. GMC buyers are NOT Chevy truck buyers; they appeal to different markets. Period. There is a reason WHY the GMT-900 platform is the most profitable platform GM has currently: GMC's existence, along with the Cadillac Escalade variants, are it.

That may be true, but I would blame Lexus for the scourge that is the RX300/350. That is what Cadillac aimed for with the new SRX. And Caddy is rewarded with more than double the sales volume at higher prices.

That new Colorado (assuming it arrives here in NA for sale), looks very different from the compact pickups of yore. In an era of $4 gas, this might actually be attractive to those who don't need a work truck with a v8. In other words, just about a lot of other (i.e. nontraditional) truck buyers.

Infiniti (i.e. Nissan) customers may not care about MPGs. Acuras probably could stand to lose a few hundred pounds too. If the Encore is Delta-Theta, lighter is better, and that is a good thing. I just want it at the dealership to get my hands on it.

Factual question: on any car engine where synthetics are not required, why use them? Also, have you considered AMS oil instead?

If it was up to me, that new LFX 3.6L v6 would be standard everywhere there is no 4cyl engine (i.e. all Buicks and Cadillacs, and the Impala and optional on the Malibu). The LFX could possibly be the answer to that Ford EcoBoost engine made for Chevy/GMC trucks.

A seven-passenger, large crossover underneath the Escalade is probably a better idea. One thing: what would happen to the Acadia and/or Enclave if that actually happened?

Perhaps, if you believe that the Lucerne deserves a second generation. If Buick is FWD comfort luxury all the time, then I would agree with you.

Honestly, it makes little difference whether trims are there or not. They choose packages now instead of trims. If you wanted a LaCrosse with leather, rather than choosing a CXL to get it, you simply choose a LaCrosse with a certain package that includes leather. It's really not difficult. That thought did not occur to me. Then again, in general I would probably want the best in a certain model anyway if I bought a new car. I do hope that this works better for Buick.

According to Automotive News, Encore: The "Baby Enclave" compact crossover, tentatively called the Encore, will arrive in the 2013 model year. The five-seater is built on the Delta compact-car platform. Why use the Delta platform (which is on the Chevy Cruze) rather than Theta-Epsilon (which is a second-generation SRX)? I thought Buick would be a premium marque, not a Chevy clone. I could understand if the next-gen Equinox and Terrain go to Delta 2, but why a Buick?

That is exactly what I want and Buick needs: a Commodore with a Buick package, inside and out.

I personally have seen a few members post that Cadillac needs a Lambda vehicle to replace the Escalade (currently a GMT-900). Given that Buick already has the Enclave, why would Cadillac need to do that? Vote and discuss.

And this is exactly why they need to bring back the program. Now if only they had a flagship that could fight the XJ or 7 series or LS460 . . . . .

Why get rid of the trim designations? How is any buyer supposed to know what equipment package has what? It does not seem to make any sense to the average customer (or me, for that matter).

Maybe they should import Australian Fords and badge those as Lincolns. That would help differentiate it from US/CAN Ford.

Maybe they should import Australian Fords and badge those as Lincolns. That would help differentiate it from US/CAN Ford.

Really. Other than the Mustang and the trucks, where is the RWD? Lincoln right now is trying to be Acura . . . . 5-10 years ago, before SH-AWD. Performance FWD is ultimately a non-starter.

That is hilarious. That made my morning.