turbo200

I think it's to GM's detriment to become so universal in thier design. as aatbloke and others here have voiced, this design trends towards innocuous and it does share a lot with others, especially in the front end. the malibu and this could easily be mistaken, I fear. perhaps invicta will suffer in the same way. on one note it's good for GM to unify thier design and have more common, strong, good themes. but they must still look different. headlight and grille shapes that are not truly distinct are not a good thing. the same with following the same theme all across the board. i mean with this and malibu we now have two very athletic, basically sports sedans in design, as has been well defined by BMW. invicta may also look 'too athletic', it will have a ready to pounce attitude and stance, that is less fitting for Buick's theme. velite was athletic and trim, but it was bent towards soft big and luxurious, especially the stance translated this and this was an important part of Buick, they're relaxed strength.

More shots are up at autoblog http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/17/officia...ignia-revealed/ More shots, official shots from GM are up at autoblog, giving us slightly different perspectives highlighting some details more than before. I really like the character lines and definition in the front end. the sides also have great surfacing, great definition and the lines are interesting. It's biggest problem is distinctiveness, or maybe that won't be as big an issue. this may play to a market, or it may not be what saturn needs to gain recognition and credibility. nonetheless, this won't fail to impress. it's still a well designed car. additionally, in person it may come across as more distinct. i think a potential downfall is by the time it does come out it will seem usual. many people here are overreacting, similar to what happened with the Malibu and G8. Both of those cars, along with Silverado have great attention to detail that works better in person. There is nothing hideous about this car. Would I prefer to see more distinctive caracitures? In the G8's case, yes, and for the Insignia. But this is still a good basic design, that will help push Saturn's image upscale. It is also much better resolved than Aura, much more unique. the Aura's most distinctive and good looking feature that everybody here is responsive to is the grille and front headlights, and it has a great stance, so people react to that. the rest of it is at best derivative and also not totally upscale.

well, for one, my comments are about the design of the interface, not the overall design of your Aurora interior. so when I say dumbed down and design flare, I am referring to the interface of every GM car, which is very basic, very easy to use, very forthright. do those sounds like words of praise? [backup point to an earlier argument I made against oldsmoboi] on another note, I agree Aurora has a nice interior, in its time it had among the highest quality controls and finish of any GM product. judging it today it has stood the test of time as a nice interior, and the only flaw I can find is in shapes and lines....general design template not so great. but even still, it was a good interior from any carmaker for the time.

again, you just love parsing words. all I'm saying is simple, buttons add a dash of technical superiority, class, and uniqueness as many designers go to lengths to differentiate the interface controls. let's bring this back to where it belongs. my initial comments were simple design analysis. keeping an elegant balance, making things seem necessary and purposeful, artful curves and lines, using the right trim and coloring, these are the focus of a good interior designer. though this interior lacks the sheer quantity of buttons of the insignia interior, it still has buttons that look authoratitive and purposeful and they immediately draw attention. the interior is donned in class and elegance, it's full of grace.

so does this mean Aura will be SWB EP II? Insignia will be. Griffon said Aura is LWB EP II...

Or GM gave them the images, told them to make something different but still close, and then approved the final images. something along those lines happened with the Provoq, Malibu, GTO/Holden Coupe 60, and others I can't think of off the top of my head. they do it to provoke buzz.

the praise you read on some website doesn't compare to the constant references to great design in every Euro car review for every major mag. Regardless of the conspiracy theorists here who don't like those magazines, they are the best sellers and reflect the general buying public's opinion, or else we wouldn't have MB, BMW, Lexus at the top of the charts and climbing. this is the issue. i can't beleive i'm still defending this perspective. i'll leave one last point. I am an admirer of that last gen Aurora, but it's interface again serves up the generic point about GM, thier designs are dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, so a blue-haired spectacles-equipped lady can look and know instinctively how to use it. there's something to be said for that, but there's much more to be said for design flair, which is what the rest of the buying public cares for, especially in thier expensive cars [non-expensive cars=$20k and under]

you're absolutely right. and this is more operation and general user-friendliness than layout per se. the buttons are still laid out in a logical organized pattern, and they're all basically in the same place. just thier use is much different. with the SRX, you're right again its use of less buttons around the entertainment center provide a more logical and accessible interface. form over function in the MB, and I'll gladly take it that way. just a thought, it's still cooler to have the functions and features in your car, yes it's a bit of excess, but it's kind of the kind of tool to have excess in, i mean if you're gonna have a spaceship might as well go all the way, get all the buttons and features you can't use, either learn to use them or not, as a carmaker, I'm going to offer them to those that want it. the ones who don't will still buy my product on sheer desirability.

I don't think it's praise. you're reading as a fan, or you're referring to the lesser reviewers. maybe going into it with a sentiment looking for good stuff instead of just reading the commentary. most i've ever read is that it's a different take that's easier to use. the button-laden CTS design has received praise, that's real praise. when people go far to express appreciation, rather than just saying, eh this is one nice way of doing things. by the way, if you read my quote it says 'what works'. IDrive did not, and way to pick the one thing in recent years to generate controversy, rather than focusing on all the good things that have won them the market share/sales. it's time to set aside conspiracies and excuse-making here, and start accounting for why the other carmakers seemingly always explode, always get more market share, while in more ways than not GM stagnates. Don't mention the five hits they've had in the last year, since that barely begins to make up for their entire maisntream lineup. so my point was to say we need to fully analyze what works for other carmakers if GM is ever to fully move into the light carmakers like Porsche, Honda, BMW, MB, and even toyota always bask in. it's curious that at least IDrive has not affected sales, in fact BMW has only had increasing sales over the last few years, goes to show there are many other reasons BMW buyers will still choose thier brand. by the way, your image shows up as nothing. ironic. even if it was there, it'd probably wouldn't refute my basic point on buttons on a dash, making a car look high end by thier quantity, function, and design...

I don't think there's any official quality to this picture, but it's a good guess certainly, judging GM's latest philosophy with Caddy. the move to the first gen C-pillar off the CTS is perfect, better than the fat and awkward-in profile C-pillar of the current inspired-by-Sixteen CTS. The surfacing is what I would personally like to see of Caddy, even more definition if possible. The lines could stand more definition in my theme for Caddy. this is a seriously good looking car, in the time it would come out, I wonder if it would stand apart enough, that's always a crucial judgement call, it sort of looks fairly a lot like a few other cars.

again, I have to reiterate a point, the number of buttons you use are not a design choice, the only design choice involved is how you're going to shape them [and where to place them, though this is more a matter of functionality]. minimalist design =/ minimalist features. with minimalist design you have a perfect example in BMW, right the 3-series, which some refer to as stark or austere. it's simple, straightforward, but those are design comments. the actual interface can be complicated or overdone without having a design that looks overdone. with the right interior color, the 3-series interior is downright beautiful. simplistic in its shape and meaning, yet not lacking depth or a stylistic approach, like you could argue of the undercooked STS interior. think of the 3-series and the STS as having started out as basic templates, with no buttons or features, just the basic shapes and themes they were using, think like that of any interior and you will understand the basic design. my comment about the time spent in Croc's MB is that maybe he didn't spend time with it on a regular basis. it took me a while to master all the different shortcuts in my Navi simply because of practice, I didn't know how to fully use its features until i put it into practice. dismissing the idea that buttons equals high end is why GM fails. They fail to see what works for other companies in many different ways. in the American market, it's the European and other foreign luxury makes that have seen explosive growth, not GM and Cadillac, I would say that's reason enough to accept thier strategy is a winning one and it should be dissected as much as possible. whatever conspiracies people deal out here aside, it's hard to look at a market today where so many automakers are being revived constantly and producing competent products in new segments for them, that it's anything other than the product being more successful period. that has as much to do with buttons and features as it does with design, well maybe not nearly as much as design is important, but thier both big issues.

no.

what are the differences among the three. besides obvious stylistic differences SRX only lacks one key feature, the MB button pad, which also helps the SRX look more basic, albeit less cluttered. Both MB looks are clean and busy. I know this sounds shallow, but more buttons also is high tech, high end, less basic. I always found the STS bland because it had flat, uninteresting surfaces, but also because the driver controls, the interaction points suck in thier design and feel, but also in their abundance, where other cars can feel like they have many different systems to play with. as for the MBs, the only differences are stylistic, aside from the buttons to the left of the screen which you could argue are more complex in the newer version, along with the lesser present and less straightforward HVAC controls. the design differences in these don't radically affect the layout. if you were using this car on a regular basis, I think you would have enough time to master the MB's controls.

ok so now I see my words were confusing. I meant that keeping the Lacrosse name would be like GM resurrecting the Lumina name, both names have been tied to lackluster cars and both have no good historical reference. That it was tied to a well received concept really has little to do with it since so few would ever remember that fact, but you're absolutely right about all the negative publicity it has received. My other point in mentioning that it was a new name is that GM has marketed and spent a lot marketing it, BUT since it's only one generation old it's not ingrained in the mind like a Riviera or Regal....those cars were around a really long time.

alfa makes some of the best designs on the planet. that sedan is one of the best looking sedans on the planet. strong, simple, mean, classy, sporty, purposeful, athletic....all in one. I prefer minimalist design, when a car inherently makes so much sense you have no choice but to be turned on.

the Lacrosse is basically a brand new name. It'd be like GM ressurrecting the Lumina name, no point when there is no good historical reference to this name and it was only tied to generally lackluster cars when they were produced.

speaking as an outsider on the Euro market, Mondeo and the Alfa posted here are better looking, and I can only imagine how intriguing they are in person to study. I can see what aatbloke is saying about Insignia not being exciting compared to those and failing to capture sales, as a result becoming a company car. The Insignia may be good looking and well resolved, but that's my reaction to past American cars being so poorly conceived in general, when it comes to design. in the American market our design sensibilities are improving, though we are not to the level of Europe, where fashion-conscious is normal. I agree with others here about the overall lack of distinctiveness. This is a cohesive design, it flows, and every part seems to belong, that's what I like about it. I like that it's straightforward and nothing looks like it doesn't belong. That's why I call it refined. It's classy because lines and themes are understated but just the right amount of definition and it doesn't go into bad extreme territory. However, aggressive and distinctive and something that would help sell the cars to outside buyers would be the Alfa above, or an idea that's unique and distinct while remaining classy and subdued like that one. Overall, in the American market, this will be a standout based on quality and potential performance. it won't set the charts on fire, but it will help to keep saturn consistent. so this is not the hit Saturn and GM could use.

not to make this more complex, but I would say a hybrid Escape and gently used RX400h or Highlander would be two great choices as well. Especially with the RXh you get all the conveniences you're looking for along with some significant level of luxuries. though I don't know how close you could get it realistically to $30k, used, and that's already far above what you're looking at in the others.

I picked Edge, but I would say they are both great, and very close in many regards. Ultimately for me, it's an issue of looks, that's what trumps most other cards for me, since you have to be seen in this car, so you want something that looks right around you. The Edge is just way more successful in coming up with a more conventional but also more provacative exterior shape and detailing. the interior of the vue is fantastic. on the cargo end, they both seem shallow. on the performance end, the vue seems like it would be a better and more fun day to day driver, but the edge also seems high up in that regard, at least from reviews on both models. pricing they are the same, engine performance they seem the same, though the GM unit is lauded in this regard. I would have to say one most practical arguments the differences are negligable, so it becomes a style choice, and there is a clear winner there.

I just had to chuckle when I first saw the nose: so much hate that has been displayed on this site for Camry, and here we have the next Aura with a very familiar setup. you know, there are similarities, but it's not exact, but the similarities overall will remind many of the Camry, the lines and bulging details in the hood and grille, the way the fascia juts out, the exact positioning of the one headlamp that acts as the eye, of course the shape of the grille. but you'll find no hate from me, I think it's attractive on the Camry, and this goes quite a few steps farther. Of course, it will be left to be seen what the American team manages for execution in the lower levels of trim, and if we'll even see this level of execution at all, or this upper trim model. there's also a case of the G35 hot-ness in the stance, sculpting, and greenhouse design. this is a tremendous update! it's more elegant, more refined, classier, more detail-specific, more in vogue than the current Aura. The surfacing, shapes, and lines are all more up to date than the Aura is. Is this exactly what we'll get? it should be. the interior execution is fantastic. it's more upscale than the malibu, camry, and matches what the accord does in upper trim levels, though overall it's more attractive and sportier than that car. the opel interior blows away any interior in the midsize segment, though this is obviously what our most expensive aura would look like.

i think the sticking the point is GM should be to realize more fuel efficiency from thier midmarket engines. from the 2.2 ecotec to the 3.6 V6...to even the eventual Cadillac V8s....all must improve on fuel efficiency. The focus first, has to be on these engines that power 'everything', from the ecotec in base Cobalts to the finest V6 engne placed in Caddys, performance Pontiacs, and Buicks. I don't think sharing engines and engine configurations is a problem, as long as they can realize different tuning, and the core mission of the car is maintained. Buick is meant for subdued performance, elegance, stateliness, executive luxury. a theoretical 2.0 turbo could fit the picture, tuned for luxury, comfort, power, and supreme efficiency but I don't know that a lesser-powered 4 cylinder engine would be able to achieve the tenants of a Buick luxury sedan, considering the size of the upcoming Lacrosse. tenants of a Buick luxury sedan should be exuding technological refinement, sophistication in operation, and maximum levels of power and efficiency out of an environmentally conscientious package. A 2.2 with high technology packaging could fit the bill for a $28k entry level Buick, so long as the resulting Buick is powerful, quiet, and above all represents some big technology strides as well as maintaing this core Buick tenant of luxury. Most of you will be quick to dismiss this and say no one will pay for a 4 cylinder Buick at that price, but I'm talking about a 2.2 tune for efficiency, torque, and refinement. My line of thinking would be a 2.2 DI with 160 lb/ft torque and 26/36 mpg. for reference the recently updated ecotec in the Cobalt now has 35 mpg highway and over 140 lb/ft toruqe. For the mainstream engine, a 3.2 DI with 240-250 hp is sufficient. Buick's focus is not on performance, but on elegance, comfort, supreme design and luxury in smart and reasonable priced packages. A 28k starting price for a midlevel Buick that is also thier entry level luxury competitor gives you an idea of where the rest of the lineup would look like in my mind. I don't think the focus for each brand should be the inclusion or exclusion of engines, but rather GM needs to focus on developing the right engine packages, diversifying, focusing on refinement and advancing fuel economy, and using technology and tuning to differentiate the brands.

Obviously others get the disgust I feel for some of the decisions GM makes. Design is the most basic element to a car, what you do with every shape, every line, every choice you make is an outline for what kind of consumer you will appeal to. consumers in this segment demand more than this plain jane XLR lacking any fine detailing and truly upmarket design choices. this car is far outmoded it's not even funny and displays a careless and laisez-faire attitude from GM concerning the rest of the market. That this outmoded, unfashionable set of design themes could still exist at Cadillac , under the guise of a $70k super luxury car, displays a total and complete misunderstanding of what this market is demanding. Look at a freakin Audi TT!!! $40k, and that car has fine detailing and sculpting over every ounce, including the damn attractive wheels. Cayman! Look at that fine interior with great shapes and sculpting everywhere. Where's the XLR? at a boring cardboard and square market, nothing but flat shapes with unimaginitive details here. Cars costing $40k regularly get the luxury car market right, and this car can't even begin to think it gets it right for $70k, no wonder there is a lack of value in the used car market, no one really is moved to own these cars. Why I started writing this post was to focus on the poor wheel design coming from GM. this is a most basic element to a car design, and GM has consistently paid no attention, like the class clown, they figure getting a D- is okay because you're not totally failing with the project. with the expensive and supposedly upmarket CTS competing in a fierce luxury car market with great choices, you get two wheel designs: come on down for the everyday model ladies and gentlemen featuring a geriatric look, flat surfaces, absolutely no design innovation, continuing no Cadillac tradition, other than appealing to the exacct polar opposite of sport sedan buyers, and offering almost no sculpting, so simple a 4 year old could draw, and on the other hand $3000 'upper crust' design that almost completely fade into the night, offer no advancement for Caddy design, also lack fine sculpting, but most importantly are too demure and mature for the mid-market CTS. They have to realize every decision they make either heightens the brand or messes with the perception people have.

agreed agreed. this cars represents one of the ugliest elements of old GM......it's so underdesigned, so dated....I'm at a loss for words on how I can describe this. In 2001/2002 this would have been a cool design, and that is like when it was shown isn't it? Around then, but going back to what I was saying, it's a simple cardboard kind of design with very simple surfacing elements, hardly any creativity or boldness, and just a 'different' and unique fascia. That fascia after years of being seen on the cheaper Cadillac, CTS, literally everywhere, is now tired. We've all seen it, it's done, it needs to move on, move forward. Let's not even get into the cheap and tired wheel design they're still pushing on production models, not to mention if that's what they plan on producing next year, that have been so severly outclassed and outmoded by cars $50k cheaper. Then there's the interior with complete lack of again fine sculpting or imagination. This car in its present form just does not belong in the $70k price range. Upgrade the design, give the powerplant a 450 hp standard model, rework the suspension/driving features, and then price it and segment it correctly. The Cadillac roadster needs to be about precision, quality, sophistication, high end design, for reasonabler pricing. I say discount the price 7k, to about $67k and then we're talking. But first upgrade the car. One principal improvement should be the design and operation of the hardtop, this should be improved with the major redesign. In the meantime, a meaningful upgrade would include what I've mentioned.

based on the rendering, they will succeed in moving this car and Buick upscale. the quality present here combined with our growing fuel economy concernes does back up the question of is there really a need for a larger Buick sedan. I think in the end, something fresher could have been made, and so hopefully that's what the American team can come up with for a Zeta sedan, that is if the American team is designing it and if Zeta ever comes to light, oh ya and I doubt it since I think China has some of the more talented designers. This is not too derivative, but it borrows a little too liberally, and it's a little too unBuick based on the rendering, seems like China influenced a lot, and that really could be a great thing, as this break from the past could really turn out stellar when all is said and done. based on the rendering, I would have liked to see more of a play on old Rivieras, using some cues from there, but Buick has clearly been brought forth into a new and ambitious time. Now this car is clearly is a $30k car, and will serve all the markets Buick and GM are looking to serve here in the States. Slightly concerned this doens't represent something really new and it's harder to stand out in that price range, day by day. Also, it needed to carve a distinct new image for Buick to live again and become synonomous with luxury and boldness; I'm not sure it carves a bold new identity rather it improves on others. It looks great though.

I don't think any of those could be characterized as ugly. really, though do we think nearly 500k buyers of camry are just ignorant and sheep? clearly there is appeal there. and they've gotten more appealing since thier redesigns, as have altima and jetta. jetta's my next favorite sedan in the under $25k range, next to malibu. there's nothing wrong with those cars. the malibu is better looking but not by leaps and bounds like you suggest. the others are competent and elegant. Elegance is a moving factor in the family sedan wars. what buyer, family man, doesn't want to project upscale qualities? it'd be stupid to say somebody. that the malibu projects upscale qualities is one of its best features, and one of the reasons it sells, and the others you mentioned also do the same.