regfootball

actually it would make more sense to replace the Sonic with a made in Korea piece and get rid of the Spark. I still don't get the anti-Impala ness. It sells very well here and many folks want a v6 sedan. I get that sedans are decreasing but i would actually enlarge the Impala and make it v6 unique. Believe me, I drive a Malibu and there is still room for a plush, more solid larger sedan like the Impala. As long as Buick has the chinese Lacrosse there is no point to not offer it here. the problem is they screwed the pooch on the design. The opportunity here is for the next Impala and 'Avenir' to be on a better platform. I don't think they will get rid of the CT6 but i think they may repackage it and rename it. Cadillac still badly needs a king size car. They are dragging out the XTS because its cheaper to build, but there will be some point where it does become obsolete. What's at work here is 3 things. one is stupid unbearable govt and its noose tightening CAFE keeps putting pressure on weeding out large vehicles with bigger engines. Two, for plant manufacturing planning, and to make anything here, the costs keep going up and they have to find vehicle configs and pricing that allow us to keep making SOME of our vehicles here. They have to be vehicles that have big margins and not very small production numbers. Third is I think they are trying to kill off a large sedan platform to save development costs. But that doesn't wash for me because the LaCrosse is a stretched Regal / malibu now anyways.

and they made a small block v8 fit in W bodies. they just haven't figured out the turbo plumbing to fit, even if the block does. or they have and just not ready to go with it. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-buick-lacrosse-awd-test-review Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec Zero to 100 mph: 14.8 sec Zero to 130 mph: 32.6 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.3 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.5 sec Standing ¼-mile: 14.4 sec @ 98 mph Below are a couple of roll on numbers for the 2016 Malibu 2.0t. I think that demonstrates how a turbo can help with roll on numbers. Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.0 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.0 sec

he autocrosses his. i think that was why he liked the last gen mazda3, they sort of had cred for that.

plus the hatchback and all wheel drive ^^^^^ win win for you both

sweet ass Mecedes Benz wazuki! just throw a three pointed star on da NISSANZ

An excoworker bought a new previous gen Mazda3 with the new skyactivs when they came out, and all while knowing and seeing the new 3 design. He said he didn't like the new Mazda3 design. I think the previous M3 design was a big market hit and i think the new one is underwhelming in comparison, even if the interior trimmings are nicer. Part of it i think for him was he liked the size and packaging and silhouette of the previous hatch design.

i think the 39995 is ok, but it should come with turbo on the v6 in order to attract buyers. the plain jane 3.6 is a meh powerplant nowadays. i get that GM developed the 3.6+AWD setup to coexist first, but a turbo 6 will have more torque and have it in lower rpm. the 3.6 here will probably not out torque the 2.0t at lower rpm's. price wise too, at the end of the model year you will be able to buy this for like 33-34k....at that price its a steal maybe the twin turbo six is reserved for the GNX

***** I have to admit that missed the ball on a couple things. The Vsport has the 3.6t option (but I was thinking only AWD cars when writing the review since RWD cars are toy cars in this neck of the woods). Also, apart from the 8 speed upgrade, the CTS got enhancements to a reconfigurable gauge cluster now as an option.

hard to take a grain of salt about a vehicle spontaneously stopping and losing steering, don't you think? Massive safety issue.

how bout you read all 26 pages of this thread http://www.pacificaforums.com/forum/474-chrysler-pacifica-minivan-issues-problems/2937-vehicle-shut-off-while-driving.html and the dozens of other threads with stuff that should not even really happen. Some of those threads will give you insight on why the hybrid has seen the long delay after a few got out into the public...... my Malibu the 1.5 engine apparently melts pistons. I've had a recall and a couple other fixes done, and I've read many threads on it but haven't gotten too wound up about it.

of course, different strokes for different folks. My biggest beef with these recent Cadillac designs is the tininess of the headlights, and the bare plastic swatches inbetween the headlights and the trim on the bottom. There should be more bling on each side of the grille, and some sort of a chrome bumper look. Perhaps the vertical LED lights need to be much wider and much more dramatic.

DRIVEN - short take review Used 2014 Cadillac CTS 2.0t AWD (20k on odometer) HIGHS -Wow! The steering! Perfect speed, awesome feel. -The ride is also pretty much spot on, it's comfy and allows some fun, too. -Car feels SOLID but not heavy. -Terrific views out of the car. Slender pillars in front. Even with the long hood, it is low and it falls away from your line of sight. -Car is just about the perfect size for a drivable fun sedan. Just big enough, not too big, not too small. -Gauges are nicely in line in front of you. They may look cheap to some but I liked the layout and liked their classical Cadillac look. -Some nice interior design elements. Nice spot to rest the arm on the doors. -The big double sun roof is bangup! I am convinced it is a must have. -VERY quiet at cruising speed. Quietness reminiscent of cars like my mom's DTS. -2.0t is yeoman like in that it can build power in a smooth fashion, if you don't ask for it all immediately. -trunk size is not bad for the greatly tapered rear end. -there is some electronic bling inside which may impress some folks LOWS -The powertrain demonstrates more hesitation than i feel it should. Takes the boost too long to spool up (maybe there just isn't enough of it) and the tranny doesn't want to kick down quick enough. OK, disclaimer. I didn't find the sport mode on the transmission until i got back from the test drive. That may have helped. -So is it redundant to say here that probably this thing needs a bit more power and torque to be ideal? And a little more engaging personality. GM needs to go back to the drawing boards on a better 4 popper or put the 3.0t v6 in here. I imagine the non turbo 3.6 v6 may move this thing out a little better but that too probably needs greater torque to make this car sing. -Sorry, but why does GM have such thin, poorly shaped and fitted uncomfortable seats lately? With cheap trimmings too? -Nice center console area unfortunately intrudes on where your gas leg wants to be. They need to redesign this area to give you more space to SPLAY your leg while you cruise through the cornfield states. -Not gonna get much into CUE, and the radio and climate controls. Suffice to say I think there is benefit to knobs, even though the glitzy slider bars look cool. -I think some of the trimmings and buttons on the steering wheel are a little too weird and cheesy / shiny / strange. -The interior in general, while not overall classifying as 'cheap' or 'bad' has many opportunities for improvement. Among this is some better materials here and there (leather and plastics I am talking about you), and to be honest it has the look of materials that don't line up terribly precisely. Cadillac just never achieves the bangup impression with their interiors that the like MB does. -I didn't try the back seat, and with the RWD layout and this not being a classically perceived family car, I don't want to make any real stink of it. But there may be some folks out there who would like more room in the back. I think i would be ok with it if i owned the car. -The one thing that i think holds the sales of this car back the most is the truly strange front end design. There is just no conclusion that you can come to on the front end styling of this vehicle that entices people...that makes you go, wow that is a sexy frickin car. Really sad it does that because after driving it, I can pretty much live with the rest of the styling of the car. SUMMARY Wow. The reviews that talk about the steering and handling of this car, are really true. Such a nice car to drive. And really apart from that just a few simple fixable things away from greatness. Why this isn't Cadillac's best selling car is beyond me. But I get back back to the few 'simple fixable things'. Problem is, Johan and the bunch put no attention on the 'simple fixable things' and now the 2018 model year is rolling out and the car is still for the most part unchanged to the buying public. I am sure the 8 speed AT probably helps and some motor tweaks help so i should take one of the new ones out and see what's improved. And i should take a v6 out. I am probably not man enough for a CTS v. Why not the 3.0t or 3.6t in the option sheet?**** Why not some better seats and a revised dash and interior? Well, peasants like me can't obsess over these small things. I am already thinking that maybe when my Malibu lease is done, I need to get me a nice pre owned one of these. No rating, just "ME LIKEY" in a YUGE way. gonna try to talk my mom into one too. **** edit, see post below

one year later, a second test drive renders nearly the exact same impressions. Perhaps some of the interior seems a little cheaper to me, but overall, again, i tend to think this minivan is VERY desirable. AH BUT, go to Pacifica Forums dot com and read all the first year bugaboos...... gives one a LOT of pause. It's a Chrysler ya know.

lots of times its packaging or weight advantage.

the 300 and Chargers sell real well around these snowy parts. I would say 95% of them i see that are about 4-5 years old or less are v6 AWD

can't blame them for joining the party

true dat. but then even Mazda went away from that.

Audi plus civic greenhouse styling, mostly works for me except i think the hood looks a bit out of proportion. Sort of hard to get used to this look on a Honda but it won't hinder sales at all. interior, to be honest, done pretty well and makes some of the competition like my 16 malibu look a little under kitted engine and tranny choices are spot on for honda fans. Wise move on losing the CVT for the 2.0 and a 2.0 plus manual would be amazing. No one will care about losing the v6 here. Honda has absolutely hit market dead on with the Civic and new CRv and now this. Cuts into GM and Ford and other import brands market share. In this case i think it may rob from the Altima and ugly new Camry. Pretty amazing considering how terrible the last Civic was.

Gotta give ford credit though. The current focus shape first arrived in 2011. They sort of led the pack in de nerding compacts. It's just time they invested into some refinement.

i kind of feel guilty here like i might have spurred some bag off on the Cruze but the truth is I really love the Cruze hatchback, and the Cruze in general. I think people expect way too much out of some stereotype of what a hatchback should be. My commentary was just limited to that the good looking sexy roofline maybe tapers down a bit much to the extent that you think maybe it 'could' have a little bit more length and height in the cargo area. I think i am ok with either side of the fence here, if style wins over a bit of cargo space, it's fair to like that. If the rear shape is slightly less sexy but had something more along the lines of an Elantra GT rear end that could be ok too. I do really love the Cruze hatch. Last time I got my malibu worked on at the dealer they had a loaded orange cruze premier hatch on the showfloor and i just sat in it for like 20 minutes. Since this thread is about packaging, i do really feel that compact car wise it's a great feeling interior, its sporty, has just enough space for the class (albeit smaller than the new civic) and for people like my sister who would be hatch intenders but aren't bogged down by the car needing to emulate a GTi or some other 'performance hatch', it is a great blend of attitude and every day usefulness. Back in 2008 I had my sights set hard on a Saturn Astra and I wanted one badly and was a hair away from pulling the trigger. What i liked about that car was the slightly more upright rear end was still stylish. So i tend to identify small hatches more by that and the original Focus. I admit the original Focus these days would look fat and bulky. Maybe the rules of what a hatch is has more leeway now as crossovers go to the folks with more concern for ultimate cargo flexibility and so hatches now don't need to be full utility knives anymore. My mom wants a CTS wagon vs an SRX because it sits lower and I explained to her the SRX has much more useful cargo room. The CTS wagon is more of a 'long hatch' to me but she may be happy with one if and when she commits to get a newer ride. I have to tell her to sit or get off the pot though because low mile CTS wagons are almost vaporware now. And how is a 4200 pound CTS wagon any sort of dynamic performing advantage over a 4400 pound SRX? My ultimate point here is that I think the CTS wagon as a shape but maybe on a simpler FWD platform may be the sweetspot for some. The new Regal wagon has a dramatically extended overhang which is very useful (and very contrasting with the sportback). But it is definitely a wagon. Back to the Cruze, i think they should keep the 1.4 as the LS engine. Make the 1.5 an option on the LT. Put an all new 1.8t or 2.0t in a hopped up version for those who really think a sport hatch is needed. Cruze is way quieter than Mazda3 and Civic. Mazda3 is not that good and Civic is loud and tacky. New impreza I don't understand any appeal. Ford blew a huge chance with the current Focus. The terrible and broken dual clutch ruined it for many owners and the 2.0 never got upgraded to a good 4 pot turbo.

wow, who couldn't have predicted it would look the f*cking same as all other Audis for the last 200 years Audi = won't try anything new

i drove one of these once and man was i unimpressed. Its lack of sales may be partially due to it just being less than amazing.

yes the new regal sportback may have cracked the code. The cruze, they just tapered the rear end of the car a bit too dramatically and didn't preserve enough length. I think a little longer and a little more upright back end wouldn't have killed the looks and still kept it from being a 'wagon'.

the 40+ at 75 is believable to me. I can get over 40 in the right conditions on my Malibu (just a bit bigger and heavier). My 50 mile best has been 46.7 mpg. I think a person can make a great case for either compacts or midsize due to their FE and neither being too large for most daily driving. I admit, at times I think the Cruze would be nice for parking and such but the extra space in the cabin to me is an ok tradeoff. As far as compacts, the dealer chain i once sold for is advertising new Focus S manuals for under 13 grand, and the automatic SE's for around 15. There is intense pressure to discount the compacts these days due to cheap gas but we are one price spike away from compacts selling like hot cakes again. I know the Focus isn't the best of the lot either, with the problematic auto tranny and dated 2.0 motor. The 1.0 is a nice token but not worth any kind of money as far as i figure. The Cruze is soooooo much better. And so Chevy has had to offer nice discounts now on the Cruze and I hope people take notice. My main disappointment with the Cruze hatch is that it's not a voluminous behind the rear axle as the sedan. The sedan really has a big trunk. The rear shape of the hatch really tapers and cuts into space compared to say, the original Ford Focus. I think hatches need to balance the utility / rakishness factor. Crossovers sort of give false advantages in cargo. Crossovers have taller cargo areas but their lengths and widths are often not far apart.

^^^ nail on the head. I think in dog days of summer, with ending of model year, incentives can swing buyer decisions drastically. There is a lot of big shifts here. VW is probably benefiting from the atlas and other reasons agree that GM is still behind the curve on crossovers. I don't think the new equinox is killing it, and now there's a big gap left for the blazer and the new traverse isn't out yet. New crv and likes of Tiguan are gonna crush it and chevy decides to actually go smaller (smh) hyundai in particular is very puzzling too. They are often easiest to get money on. Xt5 is killin it though and making nice coin for gm