balthazar

In general a truck with new styling to reflect that it is a totally new truck vs a new truck that appears more to look like a refresh of the old one. With all the new features it deserved it's own look and not just a rehash of the old one. What if they had redone a totally new Impala and it just looked like the one we have had for years? Not a smart move. Only the 911 and Mini can get away with this kind of styling. Not seeing what you're referring to with "this kind" of styling. Yet, we'll see the sales numbers on these in time. I'm going to predict they'll do very well. AFA the theory that it needs to 'look completely different to suck buyers in'- truck shoppers are a LOT more savvy than Impala buyers, without question. And the impulse segment of trucks buyers is a lot smaller than that for cars, as past sales numbers show. It's not the same demo as car buyers and the same tricks aren't absolutely necessary. Think about how many manufacturers intro new engines in mid-cycle without changing styling.

Aside from a very few features, not sure what the dissenters were expecting.

I would like to see the crew cab go to suicide doors (they can keep the B-pillar in place). Would be much easier to work out of.

Bingo.

Camino is dead right. Because the Gov't is involved, it will do what it always does, mushroom larger & larger. May not happen next year, but it absolutely will. "pretty much every GM vehicle after 1994" - I would like to learn for sure how to tell which vehicles do & don't. BTW- I have no OnStar (service or button) in my truck.

Might as well ask here- when did they start getting installed, and does my '04 Silverado have an EDR?

What's the procedure for denying a court order? Oh yea- there is none. There is more than enough testing, computer simulations & data logged already, outside of black boxes, that this is totally unnecessary for those purposes.

Yea, that looks like it. No stylistic loss, that's for sure. Radically-proportioned vehicles (here: micro-mini) do intrique me.

^ I was speaking generally (and I haven't seen the current Malibu up close) but as I stated/agreed with above, the exterior is definitely a move backward. The general idea that a car is competitive when designed in Year X, and is now UNcompetitive in Year X+2 doesn't hold water, IMO & from my experience. The current 'bu isn't competitive with the previous generation in many areas.

Baby Boom = 1946-1964 Like ocnblu alluded to- there is no such thing as "current" baby boomers- it refers to a span of years born. IOW, 48-66 yrs old in 2012. This isn't a demographics that "loves toyotas"- it's the demographic that buys the most cars, period.

You would actually buy / not buy a car based on the ABA on that model? Don't you think you get a better value in a car purchase suiting yourself rather than buying based on what you believe others think about your vehicle?? I mean; I realize that's the vast bulk of BMW & mercedees buyer's initial SOP, but it doesn't translate; that's why those companies have such abysmal owner loyalty numbers. Look at Jag- their rejection rate (non-repeat sales) is 84%. What's the market image there?

Camry doesn't sell on 'confidence', it sells to automatons too lazy to do a lick of research. If consumerism was based remotely on things that consumers supposedly value, like reliability & quality, the camry would be moving 1/10th it's volume. It's crap, but in many walks of consumerism, crap sells. I haven't been in the current Malibu, but the prior gen drives more engagingly than the camrys I've been in, so that's not it.

^ What was that, and how is it currently 'powered'?

^ Camry is crap in all categories but sheer mass mainstream quantity. Not sure that's what GM should focus on as a prime directive. And the '08 Malibu was certainly above 'average' (just not in volume).

>>"I found it telling that even Automobile Magazine in the most recent issue stated on the BU. "Bankruptcy delayed development. What would have been class leading 2 years ago is now only competent.""<< Do not overlook the fact that publications (paper or cyber) have a prime vested interest in portraying "The New" in order to move copy. Fact of the matter is, while there has been some degree of lateral movement in car design since 2011, we've had no forward movement. Malibu is clear evidence of moving backward, in fact. The position that a car built in 2011 is no longer "competitive" may speak to the OCD test-drive junkie, but it's laughable to 98% of the vehicle consumer pool. The 'competition gap' within a given year's vehicles are closer than ever in design, safety, reliability, economy, & amenities now, COO included. I would extend that to include a 5-yr span of model years, for the most part.

^ The blue '62 looks like a decent base, far nicer than the crusty green '62.

Can't agree with this. Rear end is crisply & appropriately truncated, works very well with the overall design. I get zero 'we ran out of money/time' feel to it, that's a bit of an overstatement. Overall, this gen Malibu is a modern classic, IMO. I believe the tails are just too different from usual Chevy-esque lights for most folk, because the multi-segment shape is a LOT of modern vehicles, chief among them many of the older bmw 3-series. I have no aesthetic issue with them (tho we do have an '09 in the driveway).

Not to rain on your soggy parade, Camino, but I recall 'Invicta' being re-trademarked back when the Invicta/LaCrosse concept hit the shows.

The TRQ thing is a plus, but the silence aspect (WRT road safety) sure isn't.

Too bad the 'granny glasses' face of the 3-series is being used here also.

^ Agreed 1000%. Current car is terribly wrong in profile.

BMW is nothing if not excellent at designing very pedestrian, uninspired & dated interiors.

I have read the average incentive on the s-class was $13,000 - that's amazing. Says a lot about the lack of value in the model right there.