trinacriabob

Benito Mussolini

It's very "weiss" and, at that level of household income, not much "weisser mull." Seriously, though, when you posted your Calais picture in a driveway, it looked like it was in more of a Sunbelt location. Where was that? Ok, folks, I live in the foothill suburbs of Cali's capital city, which itself I find distasteful and boring -- a serious miss in city planning since it ought to have been laid out in grand style a la Pierre L'Enfant -- that's why I live a ways out. But in two weeks, I will put my stuff in storage and be based out of Portland OR, especially while I go to Europe for a month and a half. Advantages: the area itself is nothing special but, in less than 2 hours, one can be at the waterfront in San Francisco, on a beach at Lake Tahoe, in the upper part of the state such as Mt. Lassen, Chico and all those towns, or in the pissy "Wine Country," which is pretentiously boring as hell. Beautiful areas are even closer in the Gold Country, as near as 45 minutes away. Disadvantages: there are a lot of stupid people in the north central part of the state with the better labor pool living in So. Cal. or the Bay Area. The mountain areas have rattlesnakes, bears at higher elevations around Tahoe (Bear Xing signs, seriously) and the lower elevations of the Sierra have one of the highest concentrations of mountain lions in the West (I still get weirded out that a woman went out for her nightly run on one of the state park trails by the American River in 1994 and never made it home - she was ambushed by a mountain lion and killed). I guess the thing that gets to me the most is that it's not Walnut Creek (Bay Area) or Woodland Hills (So. Cal.), either of which would suit me just fine.

megalomaniac

There was a thread once as to what nationality people are...and I have a good memory.

C'mon, Delta, don't tell me you don't speak Italian fluently?

economical

intimidating

I am motivated by my sense of aesthetics (usually toward a midsize coupe) so this means it's WANT-driven and, then, it has to fulfill my NEEDS: durable, affordable in terms of purchase price, fairly economical to operate and service and has "road trip" comfort.

Der Deutschen sind grundlich...(sp?)

tunnel

I know, but it's the "nature of the blues." Remember the first 2 years of the car: they had the Glacier Blue Metallic and the Sapphire Blue Metallic. The former was easy on the eyes and worked with the gray interior well. The latter was really deep and rich (almost too much so) and worked with either gray or tan interiors. The current Midnight Blue is so limousine dark that it starts to straddle the black. My question is, then, why bother? I like any metallic shade of blue toward the lighter third of the spectrum (see my 1984 Cutlass Brougham in the Olds pix at the top of that forum). That was the nicest color for the mid-1980s Olds and they ran it about 3 years. I would have to say that the Light Quartz Metallic on the Lucerne should be shared with the other 2 vehicles they purvey.And, the split folding rear seat....you know it's standard on both the base GP and MC. Either offer it free of charge or make it a stand alone option. Where I live, I have no use for a package that includes heated seats. Sometimes they just don't think.

I have a stockpile (they had a sale) so there is no picking up the wrong box. It's a canister with foam. You should try some!

Amish country boy

You are one of the few that likes the seats. They are, however, part of the set up with the wrap around dash. The "wraparound" thing is a turn-on with me too -- could it be our...ehm...ehm....occupation? I think they used the combo of seats and dash to elicit the adult go-kart sensation to the extent they could. Right...ON THE FENCE is a good way to put it. They didn't have to cramp the rear or flatten the roofline to the extent they did; in fact, I wonder how many previous GP customers were lost as a result of this that might have bought if the ergonomics were like those of the 1997-2003 car. They could have still have a kick-ass styled car with a few less drastic strokes of the pen...or AutoCAD puck.

Right, Frank, they are excessively firm...and over a long-ride, it becomes a big trade-off between the "cockpit relationship" which is awesome and this "wedged into your seat" astronaut sensation that can get tiring. The longest I've had to pilot a GP is Las Vegas to Los Angeles and, after about those 4 hours, you need to decompress. Don't they "test market" or "focus group" changes? On the other hand, I've taken a LaCrosse/Allure from the Albany area all the way to Mt. Tremblant (one hour north of Montreal) and I will say that the seating made for a more relaxing drive.

road kill

skank

You twalkin' to me? At 5'-10", I am NOT complaining, given that my Dad and Mom are both 5'-4." Still, unless the GP is used by what is mostly a coupe customer, it can be painful for taller people when occupying the rear seat.

Rosie

LAME. LAME. LAME. These f@#kers are lame. Kudos to the LaCrosse for adding equipment I would have ordered as standard (leather wheel, telescoping wheel, cargo net). Then, they take a feature that would just make too much sense to have it be a stand-alone option for those who want it: the folding rear seat ...and force you into an option package. Ever tried to bring home a load of baseboard from Home Depot in a conventional car? Those f@#ks. They did the same thing with the Grand Prix. A person cannot order the front passenger folding seat as a stand-alone item. The other bull$h! is the colors. Why have all these base cost and extra cost variants of red and burgundy? A nice steel blue and a rich sapphire blue aren't even on the palette and Buick owners (particularly the Geritol set) often opt for Buicks in shades of blue. Blue, when first introduced on the LaCrosse, was a flattering color for the car.

white trash

And, dude, I agree with you often but not this time. To me, these cars say "Gotham City" caricature. They are such a "period niche" product that they will not hold up for the long haul in terms of styling. Then, I don't think any of the available powertrains (especially trannies) are as long lived as their GM counterparts in the cars we refer to.

bath water

Overall, I like the car, and some of the comments you bring up are totally valid - you are not the first. If I recall your photo in the Pictures thread or somewhere, you are not a small guy. Therefore, the side bolsters and low seating position do not work well for you and they don't work well for me, either. It's too bad, because in restyling this car, they could have done a great job without swinging the pendulum too far over from the 1997-2003 model run. Here's my list. Seats: They should have kept the seating profile (flatter) and the softer touch materials of the previous model run. They were comfortable enough and there was nothing wrong with them. Backlite and roofline: Again, they could have hit a "middle ground " in the roofline and backlite department between the last model run and the current one. Sometimes, and extra inch of height and a "not as flat" backlite could have done wonders for the feel of the interior, particularly the back seat. Dashboard: The materials at the sides of the console and underneath the dash are indeed rickety. These could have been nicer, as they are even in the less expensive Malibu or an Impala. Front end: Again, they went overboard with the "cat eyes" in the front. They should have been more G6. Grand Prix's strong points are: the powertrain, the overall rakishness of the styling, the handling compared to other W-bodies, and the overall shape and cockpit feel of the dash, and the longevity of the car. My only gripes are above where they got too far away from the good points and 1997-2003 run and made the car less user friendly to a load of 3 + people. It's these gripes that have made me pause about buying one ....while I paused at the 1997-2003 because of those stupid effed-up "pumpkin" lights in the rear...good riddance to that stupid styling feature.

combi aircraft (like when a 747 has passenger cabins in the front and a cargo area aft)