turbo200

the interior of the new Commodore is fantastic, better, at least from pictures, and seemingly having better fit, again from pictures, than any other GM interior produced. This alone is a good reason to bring the car here. The GTO's styling has done nothing to help Pontiac's cause, because it looks like every other disaster Pontiac that came before it, and it doesn't look expensive. But the GTO car did fantastic things for Pontiac's reputation. Just having them on the road, and having people know what the quality, power, and workmanship, and to have them revered, is a good enough reason for the GTO to have existed. We could have had ten other Azteks and Torrents, so I don't see a reason to complain for it coming here. The Zeta Commodore looks phenomonal on the outside. It does not match what we would all like to see as Pontiac passion, in its current form it's more of a Saturn than anything else. However, if they can bring it here and help Pontiac's rep a little, flying fantastic horses! If they can change the exterior, the big if, to more rounly match Pontiac's themes, perhaps stacked headlamps or perhaps a big beak around the front fascia, something that looks modern and refined but still screams at you, even more flying horses!

This needs to happen. Among the subcompacts, the Versa and Yaris are both pretty devoid of character, exterior-wise. The Fit has some character, but is nowhere near as appealing as the new Corsa. The Fit also manages to feel very substantial, if only a bit underpowered. No small car would come near the Corse for design strength, inside and out...this would be a good thing for those looking for a slightly more expensive and expressive small car that can achieve very good gas mileage. This is key, gas mileage, the whole reason to get a small car is that they are very efficient. There are buyers, and will be more buyers if gas prices continue to rise, that are willing to switch out of bigger cars to be in something that is comfortable, substantial feeling, but gets incredible gas mileage. This is the formula that is working very well for the new Civic. Good news that it's coming here, the question is when.

cautious optimism is best, I'm in this camp. Dealers don't usually know stud from a loser.......but some of them can tell the difference, perhaps if they are multi-brand. I expect for it to be segment competitive, and it's looks to be killer, I hope this will be enough to ricochet the segment. I won't have expectations like that for a GM vehicle because they have yet to prove my faith is justified...except in concept form.

you're wrong. bam snap crackle pop. okay, the point of that little excersize was to show you that your opinion will not always be shared by others. it'll be better for the sake of discourse if you start thinking like that. Camry is definitely an upscale looking car. Fish face aside, the shape is generally luxurious and Lexus-like, that's what most people, who are already import buyers and have been successfully converted and secluded and secured, like about it. It is anonymous, but it isn't cheap looking, that's for damn sure. Interior materials aren't a cut above though, Accord has it on Camry.

you're absolutely right. however, one massive argument in favor of RWD, and I know you're not making this a FWD v. RWD thing, I just want to defend the RWD camp and play the underdog....one massive argument in favor of RWD is that it is because of the setup of this type of chassis that can allow for such drop dead gorgeous looks and proportions. Additionally, RWD has a certain feel to it that many will find addicting and even, gasp, pleasureable, once they do give it a chance, that is why the solid road feel and neutral handling benefits of RWD can often sway the purchase, even if RWD was not a list of priorities on the buyers' list and even if they do not know they are buying a RWD car.

there is no point. it won't attract much attention or court to new buyers. like the malibu ss before it, the uplevel more powerful versions will only appeal to buyers who were already considering the car. for most people, the lacrosse and malibu are far far off thier shopping lists, and adding a heckuva lot more power and some minute handling enhancements really won't entice that many new buyers, there's much deeper problems going on with those cars. start by portraying the right image for the right market segment, GM. they'd be better off saving the money for advertising and coordination costs, imo.

the problem is not that Buick isn't trying to make the car competitive.....and I do believe the Lacrosse has its merits, the problem is the foundation of the vehicle is all wrong. I'm not trying to rehash the product argument since most here already know the reality of how bad GM has it, but Buick can do a much better "American Roadcar" than the Lacrosse Super. For great examples of this methodology look to real classics of our time [i'm going to get tomatoed for using those words]...Passat 3.6, Accord V6, E-Class AMG and C-Class AMG. Yes, I'm aware I'm stretching, and yes I'm aware the price class is different. However, these cars epitomize, to the average American buyer, what a classic comfortable powerful elegant luxury roadcar is. And they deliver it in a package that is highly visually stimulating. They are not overly stiff, they are comfortable with a good grip on the road. They are powerful, have reserves of smooth silky power to go, can hold the road when commanded to, and yet the ride delivered is smooth like butter. Lexus also does this well. For Buick to actually do well, cars like the Lacrosse must go away. The way I view the Lacrosse is the way I view most GM cars---very competent base and mechanicals delivered in a package that wears styling from yesteryear and is sadly free of polish.

it's not an attractive car... not even the rear end. it's a good drawing, but I don't think it's a good looking car. it kind of resembles the challenger concept from 99

In person it's a refined and substantial design. It's not for those looking for killer looks or classy handsom chiselled features, if you want those Ford has the Edge or Explorer for ya. CR-V delivers in other areas, and finally has character inside and out.

They're Pinky, they're pinky, and the brain brain brain brain brain what about freakazoid, toejam and earl and the genesis, how cool the genesis was back in the day, it was the anti-nintendo and black and all cool and stuff. i remember vr troopers. i did watch power rangers, remember when the simpsons was an appointment.....and for the latter years friends and seinfeld....the early 90's was all about fox night lineup. I was like 6 years old and watching married with children, not getting half the jokes but seeing how some people related to each other. then there was herman's head, and get a life..... oh ya back to the cartoons... ya that dog from duck hunt pissed me off like nothing else. remember when aladdin and lion king came out? biggest disney movers ever doubtless wasn't there a solar eclipse in like 1992? the 2000s have been calamitous compared to the easy living of the 90's. and yes, about 99% of the first comments apply to me.

it's much improved, and helps move the SRX towards a more desirable position. The plastics, in general, still look like they will pale compared to what's in....say an Acura 50k SUV. The look is less cohesive, less expressive, less tasteful, and less expensive looking than the Acadia and Enclave. The SRX is outdated...but still a year and a couple new SUV intros from being irrelevant.

if only it were out within the next two years. with the civic completely upmarket thanks to a stylish new presence and its great quality feel/look.....chevrolet/GM are going to be caught blindsided yet again as the subcompact and compact market continue to explode, and now become more profitable than ever. Corolla, Sentra, 3 are all going the same route, it's only the domestics that yet again are forced to sell a car to the mass cheapos. A car with real style like this would help to command a higher price. OF course content and quality would need to be much better than what they are on cobalt now.

The lighting and angles they use seem to be the main culprit. Also, colors make a big difference, combine the blah color for the press photos of Outlook with the horrible lighting and it looks a lot worse than this here. The Outlook looks terrific in these pictures. I think it's my favorite of the three.

it's less fluid than in the animated shots. the face is as attractive, distinct, and outgoing as ever. the body is hot; it's a great looking car.

ouch, this car is soo hot, hehe....it would make a perfect small car here. I have been asking recently for small cars with aggressive looks and great gas mileage...convertibles, sedans, coupes, hatches....this thing would be perfect. Love the looks, though the accessories make it what it is. As a future design direction for Chevys, which is what this appears to be, they have a great design language in development.

holy crap those are some beautiful cars

These cars, sadly, yes, will go for over sticker in my area, and easily sell for all the money. There's a difference between a product that has a lot of flaws and isn't easy to present on the perception level, from a product that has lots of brand heritage (Honda) and is magnificent to present at the showroom floor. People react to tiny details that they love, and Honda's are packed with them. The quality headliner to the supple leather to the available nav system to the high high quality plastics to the much more characterful design inside and out---all add to the appeal at the dealership level. The first step is getting them in the dealership---people who walk into Honda know why there are going there---they know what kind of reliability and reputation along with solid engineering they are getting. Trust me when I say all the little nuances of this truck are going to be enough to convert maybe 50k more buyers per year. Looking at the current CR-V, I have no idea how we sell that piece of crap. The interior style is at the bottom of its class[okay Tucson is probably worse], the exterior is like a bug, the drive is completely uninvigorating, and the gas mileage is not all that impressive. However, people come in to buy a Honda, they have seen the little SUV, and it's exactly what fits thier needs. All they need is a good salesman to show them the attributes, and the smooth ride and Honda safety/quality are really enough to move them in the right direction. Still, I am amazed at how much of a cash cow the car has been for me; goes to show how much people love the idea of more utility wrapped in a useable package. The new model has a thousand times more class. I say that without concern of stretching the truth. The interior materials and design are in a class above the price class it will compete in. The drive is fantastic. Yes, it has a small engine, no it isn't underpowered for a LOT of people's needs. This car is the perfect LA commuter car. It's a perfect commuter car in general, and it isn't at all slow. And I drive an RSX Type S. The steering is communicative and precise like a sports car, the engine sounds refined and finally has competitive gas mileage with the RAV4. It will be a profitable addition, without a doubt.

Incredible. Though it is slightly disappointing to hear this doesn't affect bumper to bumper coverage, and especially after reading most of the comments here, this is still a reflection of GM listening to the consumer and responding to marketplace changes. They are not the leaders and they understand they need to make great changes to change thier image. Yes, the image is totally lacking at GM. However, this will spur sales, interest, and consumer confidence even if those of us here know GM's powertrains are not what need the backing.

it looks great for a subcompact, and would steal sales from fit/yaris/versa based on its good looks. the other subcompacts from across the pond look ugly, this could be the fashionable economy car of the latter part of this decade, bring it GM.

Having not read the comparison yet, I only wanted to comment on one thing you said about ergonomics, Northie. Ergonomics are not just the ease of use of controls, but also the placement of everything, including the driver's relation to all the important points of the car, the perspective from behind the wheel, the distance of the driver from all the controls, the view over the hood....etc etc. It's not simply as easy as saying there are less complex buttons in this one over that one. That said.....this article seems like one of those things that make you go hmmm.....I haven't read it yet, though a comparison like this, and one even including the Acadia and Enclave seemed inevitable.....crossovers that are lighter and tighter are competing for the same space as the Escalade is now. No need to worry though, the Escalade is still cooler looking than both these...though the Q7 looks way cool

There's lots of hype about its incompatibility with digital phone carriers....Also lots of hype about how calling one customer service assistant versus another can get wildly varying results....This isn't about Onstar. I was just using it as an example of tech I feel is a little dumb, because GM invests a lot of money in them. They add overall to the usefulness of the car, but the tangible qualities, the experience when they arrive at the dealership stays the same. See, it's very easy for me to experience a real nice navigation system that adds class to the interior look and feel, but for me to truly experience Onstar, well that won't happen until I get in a situation where I truly need it. What's going to get you to pay more for the car?, a simple button that looks unattractive and like it could break off, or a real nice NAV unit? It's akin to the difference in materials quality from the different manufacturers.

As much as I think this is "nice", first it seems like a cheap way out of just designing nice navigation systems into the standard cars, ie Impala, Cobalt, G6, etc., and second it just screams of past GM efforts to create some excitement by offering "something the competition does not" that ultimately fails to live up to expectations. A lot of people buy the navigation system for the exclusivity it offers, not just the usefulness, another case of GM underestimating its cars potential in the marketplace and the market's willingness to spend money on good product. This just seems so much like Onstar or the NightVision, a feature receieves some grand level of hype from within GM that permeates into the press and ultimately excites just about no one. Features like this will not be the catalyst to change the perception of GM amongst the public.

if killing means giving Buick one of the best designed product from GM in years, then yes they are in fact bringing a glock to thier head, biatch.

Thanks buddy. I don't think we disagree on the exterior though. I too don't like the front end. The pictures at TCC seem to capture the worst angles though, wait for some more pictures, I think it's a little better than what those pictures manage to capture.

you're right, the V6 would have been different. I think it only makes up about 10% of Rav sales, and Honda sees it as the prime competition, and of course they're so happy to be efficient rather than the most powerful. The way Honda sees it, you have to step up to Acura for more power, and a steeper price. The third row seat in the Rav is also useless and dangerous.