regfootball

Autoguide

wow that looks terrible. chevy is really screwing the pooch on the next gen malibu and its future in general with this thing. if i were CEO i'd order an immediate redesign on a fast track of that interior and get something suitable in the works NOW. garbage in, garbage out. thank goodness the folks at Opel gave us the Regal. Even the Cruze interior looks to be nicer than this. I suppose to some degree they are trying to imitate the LaCrosse at least with the gauges. now i know for certain if i am shopping affordable midsizers I can cross chevy off the list. looks like the choice got a lot simpler. Sonata/Optima, Mazda6, Legacy, Altima should be enough to pick from.

take out the crystal tint paint and the nav/audio with required pioneer speakers and this car is only like 21,500 MSRP. the extortion is in a form of better speakers, NAV, and a different paint color.

the aspirational pricing is probably to make up for that UAW labor cost..... it's entirely possible that in 2-3 years this sort of extortion pricing will be the norm for this segment. right now the midsizers across the board have such good out the door pricing, that you really have to be in love the design of this car to make a rational case for spending as much as it is. Who said GM doesn't pad MSRP's anymore for incentives? This car has incentives written all over it. They just want to hook the first few suckers. Keep in mind you can get a new Regal for 27k MSRP...or close to it, sure it don't have NAV at that price, but I think anyone considering popping for the high priced Cruze should also look at a Regal too. Maybe the LS is the steal here. 17k, and it will be in loss leader status very soon. GM will throw a grand at it as an incentive, and the dealers will be desperate to advertise it as low as possible.....it may not be long before you see a Cruze in the paper advertised for 15 grand.

actually at the auto show this year, the cruze was one of the handful of cars I spent the most time admiring. I like the exterior a lot, even if some details lack, chevy should be given credit for the upbeat and peppy shape. Much nicer than the upcoming new geriatric Malibu. and thanks to BV's excellent pictures, it does show how nice the interior is. and the car can be optioned up to quite a lavish kit. this only highlights the big flaw under the hood. A little more hp to help justify the asking price. BV suggests with emphasis that no matter how good the Cruze is, Hyundai (and Kia) are throwing the gauntlet down on kit and value and will tag team the Cruze. Actually, Hyundai Kia will go top and bottom on them. The Sonata and Optima on the top end, and the new Elantra coming below or at the side of the Cruze. Just because Honda may have pie in the sky pricing does not mean Chevy has market cred and carte blanche to do so itself. If the mpg had been say 4-5 mpg higher than the Sonata across the board then you could make a case for the high asking price. Disclaimer, i still think most Cruze will sticker in that 20,500-22,900 range.....throw in the inevitable rebates and a dealer discount and MAYBE if you can get out the door at say 19 grand with a decently equipped Cruze you may find it possible to defend it on a value case. You can't on mpg. The next stop is styling and interior and I think the Cruze has enough of each to get some buyers to pay more. Just not as many as GM thinks; there is too much competition. The midsizers are so aggressively priced these days. It really sets up the 'if i spend 1, 2 thousand more i can get a bigger car with more power that's more solid and has cheaper insurance and about the same mpg' bit. i know just within the last week i test drove a Legacy (AWD standard btw) that was a tiny blip above 20k on the dealer's price tag that is a really awesome value. Plenty of ALtimas are at or under 20k. Even the Mazda6 and Malibu and Fusion all very affordable. I think Chevy is keeping the price high to make out like bandits on the not quite full production numbers they choose to sell this year while they ramp up, and while they are clearing out the current Malibus. The Malibu then has to move up on price, and by then I think Chevy will adjust the pricing some on the Cruze. There is always too much downward pressure from the market to push Chevy prices down, and Chevy is just trying to hold the line as long as it can. If chevy had a performance version attached to the units that had the stratospheric MSRP's, with extra power and better suspension, then maybe the MSRP would be worth it on those high priced units. Ford nearly destroyed themselves in the 90's by pricing contours and oval taurus in the stratospheres. both of those cars had the elephants in the room (contour was too small and boring to look at and the oval taurus design was rejected fully by buyers). the cruze may not have an elephant present by itself, but shoppers these days comparison shop on line and in the showrooms a lot, and once they find the better values the cruze has some splainin to do. VW's new Jetta does not have the same nice interior as the Golf does, I am glad Chevy for once has a better interior than the likes of now whoring themselves out VW. What would really make a splash with this car would be for chevy to whore them out on leases like Toyota does with the Corolla. Those buck 99 leases with not much down. Get people in the seats and on the road and let the word get out on the road. This one at 24k would become a great deal if you want the leather and NAV and you can hold out for 4k of rebates and dealer discounts. at 20 or 20,500 this might be a nice deal. that trunk lining looks uber cheesy.

before the vertical taillights were added. before they jacked up the suspension.

zeta saves the world news dished up on a platter to a bunch of starving folks in need of fall comfort food.....

ok, i do see they have 2k saab loyalty. so i guess that means 25k really. sorry i jumped the gun on that. but it is a 30k saab for 25. i know back exactly 2 years ago when i got my trex i got a quote on a new 9-3 for 20k. but of course that was back then. i guess the 'saab loyalty' does sort of skew it a bit. but its not much different than GM loyalty i guess. still think the sweet spot for the cruze is that area between 20,500 and a tish below 23 on how its equipped....in theory its a 20k vehicle.

saab dealer is advertising new closeout 010 9-3's for 23k on up. the saab is cheaper than the LTZ turbo Cruze.

disclaimer, i have not checked the Cadillac website. today, i saw in the flesh an orange / copper color CURRENT gen CTS. I was not aware this color was available on the CTS anymore. Was this a custom paint job? Looked hot by the way. Better than it did on the first gen CTS.

I always thought that J2000 was a really nice car. those foglights are pretty.

well, regardless of the direction you think Buick needs to be on, that is more or less the recipe of how I see Buick making a go of it. The Pontiac references were not really directed at you (more directed at a mythical dealer person who may be lamenting lost pontiac volume and wanted Buick to replace that), even if in hindsight review they might seem to be. One particular point i missed is that there also can be no 'Buick Grand Ams'. I was more thinking that Buick can not be made to replace Pontiac, and also, Buick and Cadillac must have as little overlaps as possible. ANd aside from that, I was stating that Buick needs to be a bit above the median bar in terms of what it has to offer, all while still being close to an upper tier mainstream bunch.

fall / winter does depress me, but the economic mess bothers me even more. Tired of it. That's ok though, election day will rectify a lot of it. So I am not sure one can have fall blues if election day comes in fall!

it certainly doesn't help that BMW has a 335i now that will outperform the old M3's. essentially the new 335i is an M3, the M3 was purposely made more exclusive. your point, about price point, well made. I guy i know who is about 30 has an older M3, but I can tell you he has told me he has wanted to get a newer one and all he can afford is the 335. For some reason he keeps his old M3 (but strangely he has a spare BMW AWD wagon to drive as a winter car). Bottom line, BMW took the price of the M3 up even further to make them absolutely exclusive. the thing is, Cadillac does not have the same status in the market and 45k is pushing it, maybe 50k sticker if the car is lights out on the track and GM has room to throw 5-10 grand of incentives at it to move it at the end of the model year. any ATSv needs to be the 'entry level V car' that can bring in exactly the sort of buyers Dwight says. And also as said, it has to set up the pricing for success with the CTSv as well. there may be no XLRv or XTSv and there probably should never be an SRXv. Cadillac needs to get the ATSv and CTSv dead on in every aspect to keep any sort of performance cred with Cadillac. I wonder what production level goals caddy has set for the ATS and next gen CTS. I am certain caddy is expecting a big rebound in sales vs the DTS when they bring the XTS to market.

Buick will achieve more by making GS models have real power (not just 255hp). the drive wheels will be immaterial as long as they use AWD on the high performance models. It will basically be a budget Audi then. AWD>RWD for most modern car shoppers in performance vehicles. providing all the rest of their models with above average power levels and superior handling, interiors, road feel, comfort, build quality. As an example there, 182hp LaCRosses and Regals are inadequate to do that. Base Regal non turbo should be at 200hp+ and turbo should be able to outperform a soon to be common hyundai sonata turbo at least. GS should have eye popping performance. The Regal should be above the mid size class baseline in every measurable, whether it is on the spec sheet or a subjective thing one you drive or sit in the car in person. But simply put if Buick really just is aiming to be a lesser price clone of Cadillac without actually having a substantive difference then we are setting it up for Epic fail. THe other component of this is most of Buick's new demographic will desire a front or all wheel drive car, its simply pure fantasy to think that Buick can serve the market GM wants it too with RWD bias cars. Buick is still aiming for the middle ground that is ascending up the hill, and the dealers do not want cars that will rot on the lot in winter either. What you want is a new age cadillac at old pontiac prices. RWD Pontiac ain't coming back, not even with a Buick badge on it. Now I do think Opel needs a flagship and that could be on a rear bias platform, but you are talking much higher prices and much less sales volume. Its a niche vehicle and it by itself is not going to buoy Opels volume and if it were cloned as a new Buick flagship it too would not shoulder the load. But if Buick does bring a RWD offering to market it should be as a flagship, to compete with Hyundai Genesis and the like. And even then you are still back to stepping on Cadillac's toes.

perhaps the msrp should be adjusted to reflect what the price would have been 15 years ago, aka the age the vehicle feels like.

yet the magazine comparos and even gm's own advertising compare it directly to those. try again....... the tucson is fantastic by the way. refined but with still a little too much noise...at least it delivers the mpg....

it's not even an issue of what size or class or price this thing competes in. its pretty near unfit for consumption at any price or class until they get the refinement and interior sloppiness under control. i leave a test drive thinking my cobalt is a luxury car in comparison, this pretty much says it all. some of it they can fix, some its not worth the spit. the ford escape is a far better choice even. the kia twins can be had for some price. a bottom end equinox (current version) has to crush it.

ATS -V will play to a young demographic, 45k is about right. But, at that price point to that demographic, a pushrod v8 may not be a motivator for purchase. Which is why a twin turbo with balls out horsepower may be more marketable. Let's argue that caddy and chevy for that matter if they put ats and camaro on alpha and are developing a new 2.5l 4 ecotec, maybe the v8 needs to a 5.0 litre double ecotec 4 v8 that can both mate into the alpha for camaro and ats....for camaro so it can match mustang 5.0 and for ATSv so it has the cred to battle in the luxury segment.

quick summation JUST SAY NO. MSRP a little under 23. White, front drive 2.4 CVT. Highs - better than expected engine performance, better than anticipated CVT behavior, solid 'trucklike' (Jeeplike?) feel, feels robust and secure (or did it just feel porky), steering that was decently quick, decent gauge layout and controls, seat was ok in terms of comfort, gets out of its own way (with a lot of groaning), basically sounds like you are driving a tractor. Lows - rear seat accomodations are a bit of a joke, so is cabin with, so is the cargo space, lots of road noise, lack of powertrain refinement, cheap interior, whole thing feels 15 years old, oddly quirky styling of Jeep on a FWD chassis, nothing in the way of steering and suspension feel, dash is constricting on front driver and passenger, ergonomics are strange, only 21/25 epa mpg. basically what you have a vehicle that is way behind the curve in packaging and space utilization, refinement and NVH, fuel economy, interiors, sense of detail and quality......just say no. One might say at this price you must accept some shortcomings and be ok with its basic function but the competition is too fierce. One qualifier here....if you don't need to bring people in the rear seat and aren't in desperate need of a cavernous rear cargo area.....it may serve well for the single or couple that can afford to fold down the second row. As it is, the vehicle needs a bitchslap. The steering and handling and road feel need work. Is it a car or a truck? Decide. If you like em trucky you maybe won't mind this. But why does trucky have to equal road noise and general lack of refinement? New interior is improved but really still behind the curve mainly due to material quality. If the seats didn't feel ass cheap maybe it would be livable. I guess too it depends on your frame of reference. If you are one that typically is not used to this size of vehicle or one with this amount of space, then perhaps you find this worthwhile to deal with the bad points. Patriot pricing has never really been an issue. The styling depends on how you feel Jeep meshes onto a crossover platform. MPG is less than what it should be. The engine and transmission do not let the driver down. It's everything else in the tactile and sensory feel of the vehicle. Maybe this is why Jeep is different. This could also be why Jeep shouldn't be in this segment unless they can get it right. A Mitsubishi outlander despite an inferior CVT is a better all around choice. I shudder to think how much better an Equinox or (gasp) even a CRV would feel in comparison to this. I feel no remorse. Due to an advertising bit, I got 25 bucks for the test drive. So, to be fair, I will give it a C.....ok, C+ and move on. Some folks may like this sort of thing. If only one thing Jeep did to this vehicle was to eliminate the horrible road noise, and the NVH in general, then perhaps we can talk. I wouldn't drive this vehicle for free. The only vehicle I disliked more on a test drive was the Suzuki XL7. I would so drive a Toyota Matrix several times over before this. I can't think of a redeeming quality about this vehicle....or at least a compelling one that I would say, 'if you like this, buy this'. Peace out. Now I know why the Equinox sells so well........

one thought, perhaps manufacturers should only put manuals in select models, BUT make sure the clutch and shifters are sublime, make sure the engine is a willing partner, and make sure the gearing is well done. at a time when manuals are bound for extinction, I think it means they should raise the bar and make each one a performing instrument. Let me give you an example. Honda Fit. Decent car for what it is. The shifter is good, clutch was ok, but in order to really make it FUN it needs 20-30 more horsies.

buick don't need an alpha. all it does is confuse the buick / cadillac issue and confuses within buick as well.

GM (and Ford) rarely even spend the bucks to put the high strength steel in their cars, part of the reason they both have all the pork. Imagine all the good will it would get in the market to bring a 280-300hp, 2.0t ATS w/ 6 sp manual to market that weighed in at 3250 pounds. That would bring so much more cred instantly letting the buff books drive it and rave about it rather than paying all the idiot marketers to concoct some expensive and useless social networking marketing campaign. If getting that booming press means spending money on some high strength steel and some aluminum.....then stop being cheap about it. If you're gonna retain weight in the car, you can talk about the offset of whether you are ok with a heavier engine and tranny and the complexity but benefit that can come with it. More mass in the body can make a car more solid but you can also make the car just as solid with lighter materials. You can't market a heavy car just on the basis that it's built with a lot of heavy cheap steel. But complex motors with turbos and valves and vvt and vtec will sell and is a marketing point even if it makes the car heavier.

my recent CVT experiences this year. 1000 mile +/- rental on the Altima cylinder 2010. Very impressed, outpulls my fatherin laws 3800v6 grand prix and a lot better to drive. Good performance all around. Wanted better mpg but it was picked up with 200 miles on it so it wasn't broken in. Most buyers will have no issue with the tranny. It's very 'grippy'. Didn't have that slippy feel some CVT's had. A few test drives now in the new Subarus with the CVT. Very good as well, and it really drops the revs at highway speed. Manual mode is pretty good too. Not as aggressive as the Altima / Nissan. Decently responsive in traffic and hardly too much slippy feeling. I could live with one, and its a better option for those cars than a stepped automatic IMO. It's smoother. People with Legacys report being able to get high 30's on the highway with mpg. The Altima i had only got 27 mpg on flat interstate. Mitsubishi Outlander 4 cyl. THis one needs work, at higher speeds and rpm its a lot snappier. From stoplight to stoplight and at lower speeds its rubber bandy and has delay, plus an engine that needs more power down low to begin with. Jeep Patriot, today, 2.4 front drive CVT. I expected it to suck ass, but the engine had grunt and the CVT was grippy. It's good enough for in town and freeway use but does feel a bit slippy and less responsive than the Subaru and Nissan. But the difference is not too bad. The groan and vibration of the powertrain is the larger issue that and the rest of the vehicle sucking in general. If Chrysler can fix the NVH issues (because they can't fix the really bad packaging flaws) then it might be a nice driving vehicle. But the CVT on the Patriot is 'serviceable".

yeah a lot of the econocars, even with a 6 speed auto or manual, the 6th gear still is making for a buzzy motor because there is a lack of power to keep it in its prime. an 8 speed manual would be comical, an 8 speed auto could help a torqueless car, but really once it reaches that point where the tranny is working so hard with so many gears perhaps its best to pour R&D into CVT's for a lot of the driving population. it should be interesting to see cars like the Cruze and the public response. The Cruze has a flatter torque band and i think if the 6 speed is tuned well with it maybe we don't need more than 6 speeds other than an extra one or two tall top gears exclusively for mindless interstate runs at 80 mph.