cire

They do seem to be making diligent efforts to reduce their reliance on SUVs and trucks. This is the only way the corporation will survive and guarantee their longevity. It seems a shame that it took drastic measures for them to realize that their car products and smaller vehicles were as vital to their existence as trucks and SUVs, but I guess it's better late than never. I wish them luck and success with their efforts.

I think the current Lancer sedan is Mitsubishi's most attractive product. I do wish they would offer a trim level in the U.S. based on the JDM Galant Fortis model; the subtle exterior brightwork gives the car a more upscale appearance (I would like to see this offered with the 2.4 liter engine): undefined I like the Sportback model but I do wish they would have done more to differentiate the roofline of this model from the sedan. This model has some awkward rear proportions. A more extended roofline would have looked better on this car.

I would be more impressed to see Toyota dedicate themselves to offering some real style in all their product lines. The hybrid deal is more or less a given considering "the green halo" the company has bestowed upon itself.

I would rather see a convertible version of the Altima coupe or a four door convertible based off the new Maxima. This just seems different for the sake of being different. Is Nissan going to chase BMW in the race to create new and unnecessary niches? I would rather see them spend the time, effort, and money to make the Sentra an attractive and sportier looking compact sedan (as well as a cool compact coupe). The current Sentra looks a little out of place in Nissan's lineup, especially sitting next to its Altima and Maxima sedan siblings. With the Versa sedan and 5-door taking the Sentra's place in Nissan's lineup as affordable, entry level products, it seems that Nissan would have taken the Sentra in a sportier direction design wise. This seems like more of a priority for Nissan than trying to create a new market niche with a convertible crossover version of the Murano.

This is one gorgeous wagon. GM should bring it here to show people that a wagon can be both attractive and practical. I personally prefer the "estate" classification that is commonly used in Europe (hey, if Toyota can call the upcoming Venza a "crossover sedan", then I can call this wagon an Insignia "estate"). Now they need to develop a "TwinTop" coupe version of the Insignia. The car's sleek lines are just begging for a retractable hardtop variant.

I like your suggestion, but I would maybe go a little further. I would do any necessary updates/improvements to the platform to ensure that it is competitive, give it a full redesign to bring it in line stylistically with the rest of the lineup (possibly downsize it to below 200 inches, if it can be done without sacrificing interior room), and make the direct injected 3.6 liter V6/6-speed auto combo standard equipment. I do like your suggestion of making the 2.8 DI Turbo an optional engine choice if it can match the perfomance and efficiency of the EcoBoost unit offered in the MKS (like you said). I also like your idea of targeting this sedan at the MKS and Phaeton. Instead of creating a platform mate for Cadillac, why not use this proposed next generation platform to create a new Impala for Chevrolet to target the Taurus, Azera, and Avalon? This car would offer the Malibu's V6 as standard equipment and the directed injected version as an upgrade. This would give Chevrolet a proper flagship sedan that wouldn't overlap with the Malibu like the current W-body Impala. With this product targeting the more affordable portion of the large sedan market, the next gen Lucerne (I would actually prefer "Electra" or "LeSabre" instead) would be free to move upmarket to more effectively target the MKS and Phaeton.

I think Chrysler would be the domestic auto company that would benefit the most from a merger with Renault-Nissan. GM and Ford have global resources to rely on to help them make it through the tough changes in the U.S. market.

I forgot about your chopped version. If the production version would end up looking like your chopped version, then it would be perfect!

I thought the RL was conservatively handsome until Acura ruined it with a midcycle refresh. The RL's major problem is that it is overshadowed by a lot of more established competitors and in this segment, snob appeal and brand identity speak louder than the true value of the product. I would never consider buying the current one now that Acura has made it quite unappealing visually. The next gen TL is in the same predicament. It's basically a conservatively handsome design that has been covered up with a lot of unnecessary and overdone design elements that do nothing to enhance the appearance of the vehicle. I hope Acura doesn't let this car sit on the market very long without a midcycle refresh that might tone down some of the overdone design elements.

I think Buick still has some potential for growth if GM would properly execute the brand's products. I still think there is a market (here and definitely abroad) for FWD based near luxury products with understated, elegant styling. It's a smaller niche here than abroad, but I think it's a niche that Buick is perfectly suited to handle. If the brand is gaining popularity in China (which is a rapidly growing market) and GM already spends the money to develop the products for that market, then I don't see much harm in continuing the brand with an abbreviated lineup here (and I still think it should be combined with Cadillac). I don't think it would be wise to give up on them just yet. To me, Pontiac is a bigger waste of resources in its current form. Why spend money to market a brand that basically targets the same affordable portion of the market as Chevy? Unless GM really has a plan up its sleeve to make this brand over (which I seriously doubt at this point), why keep spending money to market it when most of its products are either redundant rebadges or could be sold just as effectively by other brands?: * The G3/Wave, G5, and Torrent are all unnecessary rebadges of Chevy products and could be discontinued. * The G6 Sedan is outclassed by its Malibu/Aura platform mates and could be discontinued. The G6 Coupe could be sold as a Chevrolet Monte Carlo. The G6 Convertible could be replaced by a "TwinTop" coupe version of the Opel Insignia if GM were smart enough to create it and sell it here as an Opel Insignia. * The G8 Sedan could replace the current FWD Chevy Impala. The G8 ST (if GM still insists on importing the Ute) could be badged as a Chevrolet El Camino. * The Sky outsells the Solstice and is aligned with the global product sold abroad by other GM brands, so I would definitely keep it instead of the Solstice. A luxury retractable hardtop platform mate could then be developed for Cadillac. * If GM is somehow contractually bound to coproduce the Vibe with Toyota, then it could also be badged as a Chevy just like the coproduced Prism before it. I think that Saturn is miscast as a captive import division for Opel products. If GM wants to sell Opels over here (which I don't think is a bad idea; they could be real import fighters if marketed properly), then they should sell them here as Opels. Since Opel doesn't have the market baggage of Saturn or Pontiac, I think it would give GM a solid chance to properly mold and market a division to target those who generally gravitate toward import brands. Opel could take over for both Pontiac and Saturn in the U.S as a single import fighter division. The development money has already been spent to create these products for Europe, so why not build them over here and market them under a name that could be molded to represent premium Euro sourced products to U.S. buyers. If GM plans on keeping Saab (which I still think might be a somewhat questionable move), then it should be combined with Opel to form a Euro focused division. As far as GMC, I say relegate it to commercial fleet sales or make it the corporation's sole truck/SUV division and combine it with Chevrolet (which would still carry affordable, mainstream cars/crossovers + the Camaro & Corvette). Hummer needs to be sold. GM doesn't need to waste its resources on a brand that will be an incredibly small niche player in the future. If GM wants to build a Wrangler competitor (the proposed H4 brand saver product which is so NOT a priority at the moment), then GMC can sell it. Chevrolet, Opel, Saab, Buick, and Cadillac are all global brands that could also be shaped to target specific parts of the market in the U.S. GMC (which is also active in the Middle East) still has value as either the sole truck/SUV division or a commercial fleet vehicle sales only division or both. Saturn and Pontiac are both restricted to North America only and waste marketing dollars for the corporation by targeting the same affordable portion of the market as Chevrolet. Hummer is more valuable to GM as a commodity to sell to generate revenue. To me, the idea setup for GM's U.S. operations would be Chevrolet/GMC (affordable, mainstream), Opel/Saab (import focused), and Buick/Cadillac (luxury).

I think Buick in the U.S. would be okay with the following reduced lineup: * SWB Epsilon II based compact sedan (A Buick compact sedan should really have an IRS, that's why I would choose SWB Epsilon II over Delta II; maybe revive the "Regal" name in the U.S.?). * LWB Epsilon II based midsize sedan (The LaCrosse replacement based on the Invicta Concept; hopefully revives the "Invicta" name in the U.S.). * "Riviera" coupe based on LWB Epsilon II. * Sub-Enclave Theta based compact/midsize crossover (Next gen "Rendezvous" with mini-Enclave styling). * "Enclave" That is all I think they would need in the U.S. A small, well executed lineup of FWD luxury products. I would still like to see Buick combined with Cadillac in the luxury dealer network. Buick's lineup would complement Cadillac's product portfolio of RWD luxury cars (As much as I like the styling of the next gen SRX, I still don't think Cadillac should be focusing on FWD based crossovers). Cadillac's lineup would consist of well executed, top-tier luxury sedans, coupes, retractable hardtops, and wagons.

Actually, I did take one more look at the 2 cars in your post. I still think you have the better looking car. The only thing I would add to the exterior of your car is some tasteful lower body effects (totally UNLIKE anything that Pontiac attached to the GXP version). Other than that, your car is hands down the more attractive of the two.

You got the pick of the litter. With your car, you can see the attractively clean yet sporty lines of the car (why couldn't they have made the sedan look more like this). The intern's car is an overdone mess; I guess there is a market for this type of thing, but I personally think it ruins the car.

This has been the major problem with Pontiac for quite some time now. GM has given the division too many roles in the past (the worst being "twin-nostrilized" rebadged Chevy clone brand) and now the brand has a major identity crisis. With the exception of the G8 and Solstice, the rest of the lineup is basically "Chevy with an attitude" products aimed at the same affordable portion of the market that Chevy covers. To give some mojo back to the Pontiac brand, the General would need to give it distinct products with a little "something, something" special to differentiate the brand and make it relevant again in the market and in GM's hierarchy. The window of opportunity to do this may very well be closed tight and nailed shut at this point in time. GM doesn't have the money to make it happen and the U.S. market isn't in any condition to properly support it or make it successful. It's a shame that GM allowed its bean counters and dealers to dictate the pathetic path that Pontiac is on today. When the company had the resources and market conditions to remake Pontiac into something that was truly more premium than Chevy that could retain and/or grow market share, GM turned away and allowed it to deteriorate into what it is today.

I think this might be a base trim model for the Chinese market (I think someone else suggested this in an earlier post). I just wonder if Buick has to cover a little more of the mainstream segment there with some of their lower trim levels than it does here in the States (after all, they do have a rebadged Suzuki Forenza in their lineup over there). Some of the front details just don't quite match the camouflaged cars I have previously seen. I think if they gave this car a grille and headlight treatment that was a little more similar to the Invicta Concept, a front bumper with foglights that was similar to one on the Lucerne Super, wheels that were a little larger and more similar in design to the Invicta Concept, and some chromed door handles, then we would be in business. If the cheapened details were addressed and cleaned up, it would actually be a nice looking car. I'm not going to give up on it until clearer official pictures of the U.S. version are released.

Hey! You got rid of that awkward arch over the front wheel well. This car is starting to look better. Now, if you could only fix that hideous grille, we might be in business... If Acura could change these two styling offenses, then the car wouldn't look so bad.

My bad! I didn't know the topic had already been posted. OOPS!!!!

OOPS! I missed this posting of the article. I have cut and pasted my comments from the other posting below: I think the overall shape is not bad. There are 3 things that I dislike about the exterior design: 1) The most obvious one is the grille. This totally ruins the front end design. Hopefully, Acura rethinks this grille design and extensively alters it soon (like the next model year would be ideal) or offers an aftermarket replacement that is considerably less hideous. I would prefer a grille with a metallic finish surround with a bigger "A" emblem in the center with horizontal bars extending from the center of the emblem. I know Acura is trying to do something to the exterior of their cars to make a statement and help the cars stand out, but this grille treatment is the wrong solution. 2) The arch over the front wheel wells that distort the side character line. Though this styling error is not nearly as offensive as the overly blingy shield grille, it does make the car appear as though it has already been in a wreck. My suggestion would be to eliminate the arch and have the character line run in a straight line from the edge of the headlights to the edge of the taillights. 3) The fakeout piece applied to the C-pillar to alter the appearance of the roofline. This styling "practice" is one of my major auto design pet peeves. Although it is less obvious here than in some other recent offenders (Chrysler Sebring, Mazda6, and Chevy Cruze), I still think it somewhat cheapens the overall design. I think I could live with this blunder more than I could tolerate the grille or the front fender arch. Other than the items mentioned above, I sort of like the rest of the design. I think the decklid shape is interesting, though it does reduce the usefulness of the trunk by providing a smaller and awkward shaped opening. The interior is nice looking and appears to be well finished. I am not a big Honda or Acura fan, but I think this would be a nice midsize near luxury sedan if Acura would refine some of the design blunders (the shield grille and the front fender arch need to go). I seriously doubt if this car will draw new customers to the Acura brand or assist in moving Acura upmarket. I'm not even sure if it will promote loyalty among current TL customers or attract those who wish to upgrade from their TSX sedans. I have a feeling that the front grille might repel a lot of potential buyers.

I think the overall shape is not bad. There are 3 things that I dislike about the exterior design: 1) The most obvious one is the grille. This totally ruins the front end design. Hopefully, Acura rethinks this grille design and extensively alters it soon (like the next model year would be ideal) or offers an aftermarket replacement that is considerably less hideous. I would prefer a grille with a metallic finish surround with a bigger "A" emblem in the center with horizontal bars extending from the center of the emblem. I know Acura is trying to do something to the exterior of their cars to make a statement and help the cars stand out, but this grille treatment is the wrong solution. 2) The arch over the front wheel wells that distort the side character line. Though this styling error is not nearly as offensive as the overly blingy shield grille, it does make the car appear as though it has already been in a wreck. My suggestion would be to eliminate the arch and have the character line run in a straight line from the edge of the headlights to the edge of the taillights. 3) The fakeout piece applied to the C-pillar to alter the appearance of the roofline. This styling "practice" is one of my major auto design pet peeves. Although it is less obvious here than in some other recent offenders (Chrysler Sebring, Mazda6, and Chevy Cruze), I still think it somewhat cheapens the overall design. I think I could live with this blunder more than I could tolerate the grille or the front fender arch. Other than the items mentioned above, I sort of like the rest of the design. I think the decklid shape is interesting, though it does reduce the usefulness of the trunk by providing a smaller and awkward shaped opening. The interior is nice looking and appears to be well finished. I am not a big Honda or Acura fan, but I think this would be a nice midsize near luxury sedan if Acura would refine some of the design blunders (the shield grille and the front fender arch need to go). I seriously doubt if this car will draw new customers to the Acura brand or assist in moving Acura upmarket. I'm not even sure if it will promote loyalty among current TL customers or attract those who wish to upgrade from their TSX sedans. I have a feeling that the front grille might repel a lot of potential buyers.

Autoblog has an article and pictures of the 2009 Acura TL that appeared on the website today. Here's the link: undefined

I would rather not see them rebadge anything. To me, rebadging foreign market products would be a quick fix to give the company some small fuel efficient products to plug gaps in their lineups until more permanent solutions could be developed. I do think they need to leverage partnerships with other auto companies in an attempt to gain access to platforms to shed some development costs. I really don't think they are in an economic position to develop new products from the ground up (we have Daimler to thank for that!). I do think they could quickly create some great new products if they could share platforms and production with other companies. For example: I think they could develop a nice replacement for the Avenger if they could work with Nissan on developing a new midsize sedan and coupe on the Altima's D platform. The resulting car would maybe share the platform, engines, and some switchgear, but have a distinct exterior/interior design that would maintain Dodge's affordable, sporty brand identity. I think this kind of setup would be the wave of the future for Chrysler LLC as far as developing future car products. I think they could work with other companies as the engineering lead on truck/SUV products since they seem to be more adept at developing/engineering these types of vehicles. As far as my suggestion concerning importing a modified version of the JDM Nissan Bluebird Sylphy to give the Chrysler Division a compact sedan, I only intended that to be a stop-gap measure for Chrysler, not a permanent fix or arrangement. I chose this car for several reasons. First, I think it is a product that Nissan/Renault would not think of bringing to this market under one of their brands because it would be direct internal competition with other Nissan/Infiniti products. Second, the car is considered somewhat of a luxury car in its home market and would fit in nicely as a fuel efficient, near luxury compact sedan in the Chrysler Division lineup (after some modifications; most of which would be to install a Chrysler grille to the front, replace the Nissan badge with a Chrysler badge on the decklid, and add some metallic finishes and brightwork to the interior). Third, since Nissan doesn't offer this product under the Nissan/Infiniti brands in the U.S., it would be less likely to be viewed as a rebadge by the general public (of course, enthusiasts would know better); this is why I see it as a better choice to rebadge than the Versa. I don't think the exterior design is so overtly Nissan that it would do a lot of damage to Chrysler's brand identity; in fact, the headlight design has a shape that is somewhat like a squared-off replica of the current Sebring's headlight design (the taillight design is even a little reminiscent of the current Sebring's design). It even has a small quarter window behind the rear door (a real one, not a black plastic slab) that would tie in with the fake black plastic one on the current Sebring. Most importantly, this product would be viewed as a new fuel efficient Chrysler Division product (as opposed to the still attractive, but long in the tooth PT Cruiser) that might draw some customers back into Chrysler showrooms. This product would have a short model cycle (maybe 3 years maximum) until a more appropriate and distinct product could be developed to take its place. Here's a couple of links if you want to see what the car looks like: undefined undefined My suggestion for a long term fix for a Chrysler Division compact car would be to work with Nissan to develop a compact sedan and coupe cabrio off the company's RWD FM platform. The car would receive a distinct exterior/interior design that would be clearly identified as a Chrysler brand product although it shares underpinnings with Nissan.

Since Chrysler needs a smaller, fuel efficient product in their showroom as soon as possible, maybe they could cut a deal with Nissan to build a slightly modified lefthand drive version of the JDM Nissan Bluebird Sylphy to import to the U.S. as a compact Chrysler Division sedan. It's not the most exciting design, but it is a nice looking, well executed design (and its taller dimensions would fit in with the current Sebring and 300) and would give the Chrysler Division a small, fuel efficient sedan to sell until something else could be developed. The only change needed to the exterior design would be to give it a Chrysler grille (the JDM version already has chrome trim around the windows, on the lower body sides, and on the decklid). The interior is roomy (supposedly almost as much interior room as the Camry; probably due to its tall design) and looks well built, but it would need a little brightwork added to fit in better with Chrysler's brand image (a little extra bling). The car is powered by an optional 2.0 liter 4 cylinder/CVT combo (which is the one I would choose to import to the U.S. as a Chrysler; I would leave the 1.5 liter base engine in Japan). I don't think it's a long term solution for a compact sedan for the Chrysler Division, but it would be a quick fix, stop-gap measure to provide the division with a product in this suddenly popular segment (besides the aging PT Cruiser). Maybe they could resurrect the "Cirrus" name for this stop-gap measure sedan (I wouldn't apply any truly legendary Chrysler monikers to this car).

I agree with you about a lot of items in your post. You are spot on in what you said above. I appreciate your realistic, down-to-earth viewpoints on this article. First, the hate-fest on this car seems a little premature. It's a grainy picture without any accompanying info. Final judgements about the car need to be reserved until clearer photos and additional info becomes available. If anyone expects this car to be an exact reproduction of the Invicta Concept, then they are only fooling themselves. Second, it's a Buick; it will not have an edgy design. That's not Buick's purpose. Buick represents casual luxury; their products are supposed to be understated and elegant (the Enclave was a perfect example). Cadillac is supposed to be the edgy luxury brand with "flashy" designs. This is what sets Buick and Cadillac apart (I would still like to see the 2 brands combined to form the luxury dealer network, but that is another issue).

To me, the photos are still too grainy to pass any final overall judgements about the car. I want to see some clear images from different angles before I label it as a success or failure. It do think it looks somewhat diluted from the Invicta Concept (which was to be expected), but I also think it looks much better than the current LaCrosse (which wouldn't be hard to do). I do have some preliminary suggestions for Buick about this car based on the grainy picture: 1) The grille needs some type of metallic finish. The black finish on the grille just makes it look cheap. 2) The car needs some fog lights; it would look much more upscale with them. That is one of the major gripes I have about Buick and Cadillac; fog lights should be standard equipment on products that are supposed to be luxury vehicles. 3) Chrome door handles would also be a nice, upscale touch. Again, Buick is supposed to be a luxury brand; make it look like one. 4) Lose the dorky "LaCrosse" name. That car has essentially been a loser for the brand; why use it on a car that is supposed to signal the renaissance of the brand? Buick has a wealth of historic names that would be better suited to this car than continuing with the lame "LaCrosse" name. Other than that, I am going to leave it alone until clearer pictures are shown that really give a better indication of the overall execution of the design.

+1 Studebaker made some nice looking cars in its time (the Hawk and Amati). This monstrosity did nothing to continue that tradition. YIKES!