turbo200

It's going to have 166, same as the Accord. It felt sprightly, not powerful, but strong enough for what most people in the cities have to deal with. The gas mileage, I think, makes the package really strong. It's also adding navigation system as an option and a 270 watt radio on that model. The leather and headliner are the fanciest materials I've ever touched.

Though there might be 5 people here who will take my word for it, I decided I'd post about my experience with the new for 2007 CR-V, a car poised to make great volume gains for Honda. Let me preface this by saying I've only driven two direct competitors and those are the Rav4 and Escape, as of today. I would love to sample the Vue, since in terms of overall design polish I believe it's currently at or near the top of the heap. In person, the new design is substantial and completely modern. There is good and bad to the design, but it mostly flows with Honda's new directive of engaging style as seen with the Civic. It retains the relatively humble and distinct Honda face of always, but the shape is completely new and attractive, compared to the CR-v of yore there is no comparison. The old CR-V is like a pair of jeans from the flea market compared to Diesel jeans of the new CR-V. It is very nice, and the design will be enough to motivate a lot of new buyers. The C-pillar looks elegant and flawed at the same time, the arch makes no sense since that isn't repeated anywhere else in the car, and the rear is so rectangular despite this element that seems to just be an afterthought. It does add some class and character though. I give the car an 8, and that is high, I'd give the Civic sedan a 6.5 mostly because of its horrid proportions and roofline....though both those translate into great efficiency for interior space. The interior is great, and the quality is unbelieveable. The headliner is super fancy, as well as the leather of greater quality than what is in any Honda right now. The interior now has a design with character, that gives this vehicle a real impression of money. The car now looks like a $30,000 car that the top of the line EX-L will surely get close to. Interior quality blows anything in the segment away, severely. The Rav4, which I used to find acceptable though not great, gets trounced in a lot of areas here. Interior design is an 8, it's intuitive and really has luxurious presence and emotive character now. The drive was another homerun for me. I got to take it through a makeshift slalom, and this car handled the aggressive turns I took with aplomb. The steering, ride, and acceleration are a paradigm shift from the old CR-V. I was also able to drive the Rav4 and Escape. I wish American automakers were up to par. Compared to the CR-V, Escape interior quality and design were beyond garbage; too bad, I really find a lot of charm in the classic Ford lines, even if its pretty staid looking. The drive was not invigorating, though someone said it was less prone to understeer than the CR-V, I think it's true. I just thought the combination of the engine, braking, and steering was vastly unrefined, though that should be expected considering Escape's age. Rav4 was a complete disappointment, though I didn't expect much from typically sloppy Toyota. The handling was uninvolved, and everything felt very disconnected. The CR-V seemed to beg to be pushed harder, all while being incredibly refined. Great road communication, very elegant feel to that feedback. I went a lot crazier with detail than I expected to, but I'm sure you all predicted that The bottom line is Honda expects this car to add 30k units to the CR-v's current volume. I see it taking share from cars as expressive and expensive as the Murano and on the lower end stealing from low end buyers of the X3 and RX maybe. With gas mileage being 30 on the highway for a 2wd model, this car has a lot to offer and has suddenly upped itself into a completely different segment, much like the Civic is now an in between car. It looks like Honda's plan to be a "premium" everyday car is working.

there's no reason why the production car should look anything less than these photoshops, they're perfectly feasible and very attractive, and would set Saab apart, something they desperately need to regain any hope of relevance. Those wheels are awesome, and all of them look very good. The hatch is bomb, GM needs that car to differentiate Saab from the rest.

Both the Accord and Camry get better gas mileage than Ion, 24/34 and 24/33 versus 24/32. GM could stand to improve the mileage on thier 4 cylinder engines. It makes sense to keep their fuel efficient car around for one more year, especially if it makes them some extra money and keeps plants humming.

statistics show that facts are true only 15% of the time!----Homer Simpson (or something like this) my question is would have been a wiser investment just to widen Sigma or do a stretched Theta and could it have resulted in less ungainly SUVs. A widened Sigma could then have been used for more Cadillacs as well. 400 lbs is a big difference, I can only hope the interior space advantage will be significant, and maybe integrity will be much greater than Pilot. I just thought one of the biggest reasons to go to a car platform is for lighter weight, and the resultant better integrity/handling, better mileage, better overall performance, better space. If the mileage isn't great compared to Tahoe, I will be disappointed.

He may be referring to the above 5000lb wieght (!) of Lambdas. Sadly, for GM fans, empowah makes a strong case; these upcoming launches seem to stink of GM's perpetual misreading of the market......especially when considering the same basic truck came out already--Tahoe. The weight of these trucks is substantial, about as much as a Tahoe---that throws out all the benefits of switching over to a car-based platform in the first place. I agree that a stretched Theta, Epsilon on stilts, or more SRXs would have been wiser choices----but this is all based on preliminary specs so I may be wrong. Don't take my word for it....I truly hope these will become massive hits, for GM's sake.As for the pictures themselves, they look great. The interior looks true to concept--that is to say fantastic. The real sales growth these days is in compact cars and hybrids....where is GM?

all i can say is good....overdue.

it looks a lot like what the CTS will look like. From this angle, I'm not so sure this will be groundbreaking or exciting. EDIT: let me add.....this is nice....i like it, but my comments reflected above are what i feel.

this is true, but when they get it right, boy do they get it right. the new 3 sedan is stunning in black sport trim.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of color choice to the marketing and positioning of a car. Please, for the love of God, Cadillac, no old people colors like shades of green or browns that are unattractive. Stcik with the steel grays and blues for more conservative color choices, derivatives of silver.....but no greens. Just use youthful, vibrant colors, like Oldsmoboi said.

well............I like it. :AH-HA_wink: I think it's elegant, clean, and rich....plus it's sporty like a Pontiac should be.

He still looks like a nerd from the front, you know the eyes....? Anywyas, it's a little better, and that interior is everything a Pontiac should be.....but it's still nowhere near as elegant and timeless as the X5.

When you stare at the greenhouse of new MBs, CLS, S, and now CL, in pictures, it looks pretty silly. But taken in context of the whole design, in person, the results are stunning. The character line that droops towards the rear will be art in person, the only disappointing aspect of this design to me is the rear head on. It's a little generic, unlike the new S. I am a huge fan of MBs new direction, with every new car they release that takes dramatic stance and statelyness to a new level I fall more and more in love. The old S was boring and friendly, the new line of cars are just intimidating and sexy. This one doesn't disappoint, can't wait to see what they do with the C-class.

still incredibly underwhelming design features going on at the General. How do they hope to woo upscale buyers with downscale interior features and designs?? Acura and Audi are far ahead of this crap, and it will show when the test drives happen. They haven't even integrated the keyless with the driver's key, like Honda has been doing for two years now. At least it's a new fob. Too freakin late in my book.

beautiful. truly class-wrothy and actually inspired design. original elements abound and the tall design theme is kicked to the curb. truly terrific.

perhaps coupe buyers were looking for something with more sporting looks than either of those antiquated designs? Ford never had a problem selling Mustangs, Mitsu with Eclipse, Toyota with Celica, even Chevrolet with the Camaro. Riviera and Eldo were simply huge excesses of sheetmetal and mass wrapped around an overall less manueverable car than what the competition was offering=antiquated thinking. The 96 Riv had equivalent rear seat space to my much much smaller 97 Nissan 200sx coupe.

very tired.

I've been seeing a lot more G6 coupes and sedans around the LA area. Funny, a lot more means I've actually been seeing them around, as opposed to hardly ever. The G6 coupe I've finally seen twice or three times on the road, those are definitely retail sales, and I've been seeing a lot of GTP sedans. Looks like those are good deals, seeing as how the Accord V6 sedan starts at around 25k, but you could get a G6 GTP for around 23-24k. Great looking cars on the outside, especially in GTP form, but the interior is bleak.

I think you shouldn't worry what anyone here gives you credit for. Your words will ultimately speak for themselves, and I mean that in a good way.

okay whateva

One more thing I didn't add. Especially, in the Midwest, but around the country too just not as much, Pontiac has acceptance in the youth crowd, thanks to the GTO and Solstice, and years of "sinister" design, whether you take it that way or not, and whether they were successful at being sinister or not [a lot of the times, in recent times, imo, no].They still have that. And building upon it with a RWD sedan priced around the Civic bracket, say 16k-22k with the uplevel turbo sedan rounding out the lineup. Of course all the safety and quality requirements need to be met at the gate for this car to get through.

nobody cares that they were FWD except for diehards here. And they don't have unlimited bank accounts to buy every car GM makes twice. Wanting them RWD displays a cautious understanding of platform dynamics and the luxury azspect of these cars.

the answer is no one knows. this is an experiment that is yet to be performed, so no one here, except for insiders with access to marketing research would know the real answer. I think a G5 with a totally different approach to product positioning and design would do much better than the current approach. Let's say a hot small, AWD/RWD sedan with a turbo engine, and REAL design, REAL quality, and REAL performance would sell at least 100k units a year. Here's my rule of thumb: if Subaru, with its limited dealer network, high prices, and, in few cases, to some people, still unknown reliability record [simply because they have no experience with the brand, nor know anyone with it]....if Subaru can sell 25k WRXs, Pontiac, with a much hotter design, great quality and performance, and a good price, and huge dealer network and recognition, can sell a hell of a lot more. The same is true with a coupe. Just start the price low. A lot of people who have experience with GM, have positive experience. Unless people present some real evidence here, then it's all based in nothing.

SRX is advertised plentifully. Marketing and exposure are not the problems with this car.

you have twisted facts and bull$h!ted your way into too many sales....the difference between deception and reality in your life does not exist.