ponchoman49

And to those that think the new Camry miss pipgiemobile barf bag looks better than the new Aura... please lay off your crack pipes and open your eyes.

The interior is up to standard but the exterior! Very dissapointed in Hyundai on this one!

This dump on wheels looks like a lady bug got on with a slug and the slug puked all over it's innards to create the interior. Really if your going to create a little econobox make it resemble the 07 Aveo.

My local Ford dealer had a prestine white 1987 Monte Carlo SS sitting up front that was causing much attention on a Sunday afternoon. Needless to say it was sold a few days later. It sure got a lot of people into that dealer though.

Factory tested! I suppose they "factory tested" there new Avalon that many are having troubles with. And lets not forget the new 6 speed automatic that operates on 4 speeds or the Prius which gets a "factory tested" 60 mpg in the city when in reality it does more like 40-45! And how about those sludgomatic 2200 L4's and 3.0 liter V6's or the overinflated hp numbers on most of there engines. Honestly, this companies sheer arrogance is even greater than there ignorance!

Not getting too excited about this yet. More than likely it will only be on high end Caddys, cars whos styling has lost my interest of late.

Putting this into perspective, the new AFM 3900 is rated at one more city and 2 more highway or in other words 20/29. The base 3500 is rated at 21/31 and will have 224 hp. The 3900 AFM loses 9 hp and is down to 233. The old 3800 in the 00-05 Impalas was rated at 20/30 and felt darn near as quick as the 2 Impala 3900 3LT's I drove. In fact the 3900 Impalas really didn't seem much different than the base 3500 versions. So the whole point of the 3900 is?

I'm just not seeing the fuel economy benefit that they keep talking about. The Saturn Aura midsize with the 3.6 DOHC and new 6 speed automatic is rated at only 18/27 which is way behind some newly introduced models and flat out embarressing. The low tech pushrod 3500 and 4 speed automatic are rated higher at 20/30 so i'm not seeing the extra efficiency in the new 6 speed trans. Lets hope that it proves far more efficient in other applications.

I also noticed how the Impala 3900 didn't really seem any faster than the basic 3500 version. And it's strange that my 00 Impala had more rear seat legroom than the current version despite identical 18.6 cu ft trunks so I guess this one can be partially blamed on the chunky clunky seats taking up more space. It's sad that a smaller in length 2006.5 Kia Optima utterly obliterates the Impala in rear seat legroom and that the smaller, cheaper Chevy Malibu offers power pedals and telescoping wheel whereas the Impala has neither. I can't explain the engines feeling similar in power though. Maybe they need to be fully broke in to really feel there power potential.

The Yaris looks like a comical mating of a ladybug and a troll! Didn't expect it to finish more than mid pack.

It just copies so many other designs, a Toyota tradition!

The Caravan/Town and Country have always been the best. Now if only Chrysler would offer the 3.5 250 hp engine as a hot version for those seeking more refinement.

The Lucerne is a more expensive car, especially in CXL trim which as I said many times deserves the extra power and refinement of the superior 3.6 DOHC. The 3800 is fine for the base CX as I stated above that the target audience doesn't care about 0-60 performance. And my biggest complaint about the 197 hp version used in the Lucerne is that it is an embaressment that a 2006 higher end luxurious car that can go well over 30K has a less powerful engine than a 1995-2005 Buick LeSabre/Bonneville and is quite a bit slower too! At least DCX offers 2 alternative more powerfull and up to date engines as options. I have no problem that they offer the revvy little 2.7 as the base engine in the cheaper value leader models for those that don't want to spend the extra dough and want better mileage. My buddys 02 Intrepid with this engine actually had more top end power than my LeSabre with the 3800 so it can't be all that bad. Now if we were talking about a 30K 300 Limited with this engine, I would be the first to disagree with it. The higher end Lucernes with less hp and torque than a 1995 model, lower mpg fugures and quite a bit slower 0-60 times is unacceptable! The Lucerne CXL needs the 3.6 DOHC like right now!

It's hard for the younger ones to understand that the majority of the buying public isn't interested in super fast 0-60 times and a 2.7 liter equipped 300C or Charger will out accellerate many 1980's and some 1990's cars, even with V-8's. Most people I know are buyng cars based on fuel economy numbers, price, room and comfort and did I mention price. Also talked with folks that have rented 2.7 liter 300's/Magnums and Chargers and were quite happy with the overall performance of the cars, especially on the highway. These engines biggest achilles heel is off the line power which is pretty sedate.

Weight loss-diet!

True but the Lucerne is heavier than the former LeSabre and even the base Park Ave of 1997-2005 vintage. LeSabres, mine 2000 included, came in at around 3500 lbs with the Park a little over 3600 lbs. The Lucerne starts at over 3700 lbs on the base CX and goes all the way to a hair under 4000 lbs on a loaded CXL 3800. Most LeSabres with the base 2.86:1 axle and the Park Aves with there 3.05:1 gear got to 60 in 8.0-8.2 seconds in my hands and the auto mags even got in the mid to high sevens on LeSabres with touring suspension and upgraded 3.05:1 gears. The Lucerne is heavier and has to limp along with the 2.86:1 axle and less power and torque than the 3800 series II which makes no sence at all to this day why they did that. In my book the 3800 197 hp engine should only be in base CX models with 3.05:1 gears as a minimum and the CXL V6 model badly needs the 3.6 engine from the LaCrosse with a few more ponies thrown in for good measure.

8.8 seconds is what Motor Trend supposedly got with there Lucerne CXL 3800 in the 3 way sedan comparo on newstands this month. Buick says that a base CX will do 8.4 seconds but I have yet to confirm this.

That must have been a very new and green Northstar to have been that slow. Other tests have the Lucerne CXS Northstar at 6.9 seconds to 60. I drove a CXL V8 car that a bud rented from Hertz and it did a consistent 6.8 seconds in the run probably because of it's 1" smaller diameter tires and slightly less weight compared to the CXS.

The axle ratio change to 3.05:1 is long overdue. Best to make the car at least similar to 1999-2004 Buick Regal standards which had this ratio all along. Hopefully the seat material is still good quality and a bit darker with more of a pattern to it. A change in the woodgrain should help too. What I really was hoping for was a new or revised front end treatment like the Super and a nice dark blue interior option like in the Lucerne and Caddy DTS. When the 3800 runs out we may see the 3500 or 3900 as the base engine. With Buicks quiet tuning these engines could be made quieter than the Impala/Monte. I have said all along that Buick should have made a lower cost Century version with the 3500, quiet tuning, 6 passenger seating, less available features and standard equipment and some different exterior styling cues for around $19995. This would make a nice lower cost volume leader that would do nothing but help Buick sales. Many people I have talked to miss the Century because of this. It was an inexpensive way to get into Buick quality. Would also like to see the center stack made the color of the dash. This would be a very inexpensive thing to do.

I saw that interior on the Ming blue cars and I have to say that Buick is on serious drugs for dropping that interior color combination. So sad that the market is driven by the likes of these dull boring Asian cars with blah everything interior colors and exteriors.

OMG no! Please tell me GM isn't still having f...ing problems with that stupid ass intermediate steering shaft! This is going on what 10 years and still not resolved. My parents have a 2001 Bonneville that GM tells them there is no parts available to fix this issue as of now and that a totally new updated shaft has to be installed. This TSB has been updated many times and it was apparent that all fixes up to this point were just bandaids to get people out of warrenty.

The 07 changes should have read: Deletions: 211 hp version of 3500, fixed back rear seat on LS and LT models, floor console with no shift indicators, wood trim option on SS models and SS suspension and tires combo, rear spoiler deleted as std equipment on 3LT model, LTZ trim, wheel covers on LT Changes: 224 hp version of LZ4 3500 V6 now std with E85 capability across the board, 3900 with AFM and 242 hp, split rear seats with armrest now std on all models, floor shift indicators included on models with bucket seats, LT models now include alloy wheels, leather steering wheel with controls, 3LT comes with lighted vanity mirrors as std, SS models only available with brushed silver interior accents, SS models get same suspension and tires as Grand Prix GXP This should be a no brainer for Chevy to do with very little price increases as most of the normal models are still here intact. LS is still the base at $20995 including dest LT is the next step up at $21995 including dest 3LT is the best V6 model with 3900 at $23995 with dest SS is the flagship at $26995 including dest

Another in the tireless dorkmobile Asian tirade!

Unoriginal styling that tries once again to be BMW.

Not liking the rumored return of the stone old 4.3 liter V6, unless of course GM gives it the same updates as the 4.8 and 5.3 with around 230-240 hp. And why is the 2WD 5.3 rated at the new 320 hp, 340 torque rating and the 4 wheel drive version has the old alloy 5.3 numbers from 2005 of 310, 335? These 5.3 numbers are down drastically from what we first heard they were gonna make.