PeterPuck

The Accord is simply a better car (yes, this is a safe assumption). This should be no surprise, given the vast amounts of money Honda has to develop and concentrate on new vehicles. Most Americans, understandably, will choose the better vehicle to put their hard-earned money into, even if it's not miles ahead in quality. The few that will purchase the Malibu because it's "almost" as good and because it's American will not be significant enough. I expect the Malibu to sell around Ford Fusion levels (retail) while the Accord becomes the #1 selling car in America. Then I expect people here to moan about how people are brainwashed by imports, rejecting perfectly good vehicles like the Aura and Malibu in favour of "ugly" vehicles like the CamCord.

Exactly. It seems that the same people who sing the praises of domestic interiors with hard plastic like to bash imports with the same thing. Do people go through the interior of an import and poke away everywhere in order to judge the "quality"? "That's hard there, that's soft, that's hard..." There can be hard plastic, if it's well-executed. I still remember the pillowy, puffy interiors in some of GM's interiors like the Grand Am. They were horrific, but someone had decided that they public wanted "soft".

Huh? He just recommended that buyers purchase two Toyotas. He practically stated that the gas-only Lexus is the best luxury car in the world, and the Prius is the best economy car in the world, and that you should buy both if you have the money. By contrast, the NYTimes once suggested - in an Explorer review -that buyers get a Odyssey instead. To his credit, he did loudly chide them for hybrid hypocrisy though.

This idea makes as much sense as Burger King putting Big Macs on display. It's stupid and naive. In effect, the dealers would be saying "Here is the benchmark that we've worked so hard to reach. Like it?" Most people go for the benchmark regardless of how fancy the copycats are, simply because it's the benchmark. Would Toyota stick a Chevy Silverado in a dealership? No way. And the reason is not that the Chevy is so much better. GM, please don't advertise Camrys.

The only thing wrong with this thing is the name "Flex", which will undoubtedly confuse people. It either evokes images of a muscle-bound airhead, or of fuel systems.

By "value" pricing, I mean a family vehicle that doesn't cost as much as a Lambda. Minivans are cheap, and most families can afford them. The Lambdas are not cheap. Not all families are upper-middle class. People buy the el-cheapo Dodge Caravan in huge numbers for a reason. People who want a better minivan will opt for an Odyssey, not a Lambda. We can expect to hear of many dealers forced to turn people away because they wanted a "van". Contrary to popular belief, most minivan drivers and potential buyers are NOT ashamed to drive a vehicle with a sliding door any more than they are ashamed to have kids. And the sliding door is a wonderful convenience; especially the remote feature. This, by itself, makes it worth it for our family to drive a Montana. You can NOT trust a child to open a hinged door if there are vehicles parked next to you. The next vehicle is almost always within striking distance, especially in crowded Calgary where we live. Dropping the kids off, you can just press the "Open" button on the console, and "Close" when they're gone. Picking them up, same thing. If your arms are full, you can manage to press the "Open" on the remote rather than put everything down to let the kids in. It's a huge opening; bigger than that of a hinged door, and the larger opening can be very convenient.

No, no, you don't really want a sliding door. You don't want the option of value pricing. You're too embarrassed to drive a minivan! You want an expensive crossover! You want to ding cars beside you at the mall or to squeeze your kids out of a 8" wide door opening. There, now we got that out of the way. These Lambdas are going to become another case of "Why isn't anyone buying these things? They're the best in their class!" Maybe, just maybe, the market hasn't demanded them. GM and Ford need to get it through their heads that they do not set the market trends out of sheer will, or unwillingness to offer what the market wants. Somebody else will give people what they want if they won't do it.

The designers know it looks better without the visible c-pillar, I'm sure. The c-pillar is visible for one reason: so the Enclave doesn't look like a minivan.

Can someone please explain why this thing negates the need for a minivan in the lineup? If people would remember, Ford released a very similar vehicle in the Freestyle - a crossover vehicle that could seat 7, with all the benefits of a minivan. They sell only about 6 thousand a month. Why should these vehicles do better? I have three kids, and the power sliding door in our Montana is incredibly convenient, and we wonder what we did without it. It's roomy, economical, and fulfils family needs that only a minivan can.

I'm not quite seeing why the Monte Carlo is supposed to be this ugly, stylistic embarrassment. It's really not that bad at all. The only bad thing about it is that it's not RWD.

The name sounds insulting somehow. "Invective", anyone?

No, no. It really is this simple. Rick Wagoner is the source of GM's current woes. Wagoner inherited a perfectly healthy company, with thirty years of excellent cars, stylish designs, consumer goodwill, excellent executive decisions, small legacy costs, a happy and cooperative union, and a high level of efficiency. He flushed it all down the toilet because he is the embodiment of incompentence. Right?

You could apologize by not attacking GM leadership to promote your own agenda. You could even reverse some of the damage you've done by publically apologizing for your actions. And you need to put yourself on the right side of GM history. You've now put yourself in the position of needing GM to fail to justify your entire existence. GM will recover, and you're still going to be pushing your plan, and saying "IT HAPPENED IN SPITE OF WAGONER!!!".

Hmmm... Separated at birth?