cire

I think it's a nice evolution of the current Aura. I think they should call it Aura on both sides of the Atlantic and reserve the "Insignia" name for the proposed rear wheel drive flagship sedan.

I also agree. Pontiac will never be relevant in the car market again if GM does not redefine its purpose. This will never happen if they keep up the endless parade of stopgap measures to fill in the lineup. I don't dislike the Vibe, but I think it was assigned to the wrong division. At least it had its own appearance and did not resemble any other GM division's products (unlike the truly pitiful Chevy badge engineered clones; G5 and Torrent). They hung the poor Solstice (one of the few products sitting on a Pontiac lot that has a right to be there) out to dry by putting it out there without any other products that represent a new and improved performance division. The G8 is on the way (I hate the alpha-numeric nomenclature), but so far that's the only definite product on the way. Pontiac needs its rear wheel drive product portfolio and it needs it A.S.A.P. Stop the talk and start the product flow!

I will start out by saying that I am a big Mazda fan. I own a Mazda3s sedan and it has been a well built, reliable vehicle for the 3 years that I have owned it. It's fun to drive and has great exterior/interior fit, finish, and styling. I love this redesign. The original Mazda6 was attractive, but it was starting to look dated in the marketplace. I think the upcoming car's exterior fits in with Mazda's current lineup much better than the existing model. The only design element that makes me flinch is the slab of black plastic behind the rear window on the sedan. Although it is much better incorporated into the design here than on the Chrysler Sebring sedan, I still hate it. The hatchback has a small window in this area, why not do the same on the sedan. I also think that the interior is a continuation of the Mazda3's interior; I see a lot of similarities although in a slightly updated form. I hope this generation is just as successful for Mazda as the existing generation has been. A couple of possible bummers: 1) I've seen information at other websites that states that the U.S. version of the car will be different than the one introduced at Frankfurt. I cannot determine if that means different powertrain choices or different styling. If the difference is in powertrains, I am not that concerned. If the difference is in styling, then I'm not a happy camper. I like the slick, svelte, athletic appearance of this car; it stands out in the midsize segment. I don't want a Camry or Accord wannabe; if that was the case, I would buy a Camry or Accord. 2) We may only see the sedan configuration of this generation in the U.S. I like the wagon as much as the sedan (and many of you seem to appreciate the hatchback version). I find it disappointing that Mazda might limit our choices over here. I think in a gas conscious society, Mazda needs to give the wagon and hatchback another chance. Some people like the extra car-like utility that a hatchback or wagon offer without the additional height and weight of a crossover. Also, having three configurations of this car makes Mazda unique (actually, a coupe version would be pretty cool also).

I agree with you on the "Super" trim name. It sounds outdated and kind of boring. I think they could come up with something that would convey a more exciting and upscale image for their performance trim levels. As far as model names, Buick has a rich history and should continue to use some of their past model names. Camry, Accord, Corolla, and Civic are historic Japanese model names that are still relevant today due to their companies' determination to redesign and update their vehicles on a timely basis. These names have recognition, value, and loyalty in the marketplace. If Buick makes a commitment to this same ideology, then there is no reason that model names such as Regal, Skylark, Century, LeSabre, Park Avenue, Riviera, Electra, or Invicta couldn't carry the same cachet in the marketplace. It's a shame that many of the models that appear on the most recent J.D. Power 3 year reliability report are no longer currently available at Buick dealerships. This could have been a major marketing coup for Buick. Whatever Buick decides to name their future products, by no means should they resort to utilizing an alpha-numeric nomenclature for their vehicles.

As an eye catching design exercise to showcase the company's new technology, it succeeds. This thing sure does attract attention (good or bad). As a signal of future design direction for Mercedes, it fails. I hope this thing remains a design exercise and nothing more; it looks like they left an S-Class sedan in the sun too long.

It's o.k., but I do agree with the other members about the front overhang. I think the new Mazda6 wagon totally blows the doors off this thing. I have to confess that I'm biased towards Mazda.

It's essentially a jack-up 5-door hatchback on steroids. I don't think it's ugly, but it seems senseless and ridiculous. I can see some fashion conscious debutante riding around in it because it's the latest trendy accessory from BMW. I'm not so sure that it will appeal to anyone else who happens to have more sense than money. It almost seems like BMW is so bored cranking out 3, 5, and 7 Series sedans, that they have to invent silly new segments just to entertain themselves. Whether this type of vehicle with limited utility will really catch on in the marketplace will only be revealed by time and the auto buying public.

I know this is a very minor gripe, but the appearance and placement of the front fender vent on this Aveo is shockingly similar to the one on the 2008 Cadillac CTS. I know smaller cars usually try to mimic more expensive cars in a corporation's hierarchy, but allowing the lowly Aveo to sport a Cadillac design element cheapens the image of the design element for Cadillac. If they want to slap one of these unnecessary things on an Aveo, fine; just don't make it look this identical to the one you have put on your redesigned Cadillac luxury product. If you want Cadillac to regain its "Standard Of The World" status, keep their design elements strictly within the brand and don't use them on a bottom feeder, Daewoo engineered product offered by your affordable mainstream brand. Imagine someone going down the road in their beautiful 2008 CTS and they pull up beside this Aveo with the exact same design element mocking them; how proud is this person going to feel about their Cadillac? I know image and class perception is a very superficial (and usually stupid) part of society, but unfortunately it is something that does exist and must be dealt with by automobile manufacturers. You don't see BMW putting a double kidney grille on a Mini or Mercedes putting a three pointed star on a Smart. First the front wheel drive Saab derived Epsilon "B" series cars (sedan and wagon), then this. Sometimes you just want to slap someone at GM/Cadillac on the back of the head and yell "What in the holy name of Cimarron are you trying to do!?" They claim they want to make inroads in the European luxury market, then they make decisions that undermine their ability to make an impact. Commit to the mission and follow through; and by all means, don't let Chevrolet/Daewoo derail you from your destination.

I thought the "B" designated Cadillac products (sedan and wagon) were created to fully utilize production at a Saab plant somewhere in Europe. No wonder they dilute the brand's image. You don't give a brand watered down retread products to take up idle production at a plant. Cadillac should have no front wheel drive products in their lineup, period. GM really shot themselves in the foot with this one. These products damage the overall brand image of Cadillac in Europe; they will never be taken as a serious competitor to BMW or Mercedes if they continue producing inappropriate products like these for the brand. This is the same misguided train of thought that resulted in a Chevy Cavalier being morphed into a Cadillac Cimarron. As for wagons and crossovers, Cadillac should have them if the design is executed correctly. I don't think they should discontinue the SRX crossover, but it needs a more cohesive design for the next generation. The current model looks to much like an elevated station wagon and a poorly designed one at that. Cadillac has proven that it has vision and direction in design with the 2008 Cadillac CTS and the Sixteen concept car. They just need to utilize this talent to elevate the image of their entire lineup.

I haven't forgotten these three products. I do agree with you that these three products were the exception to the rule when Daimler was calling the shots; well executed, segment appropriate vehicles. Unfortunately, these three do not make up for the fact that the rest of the lineup did not receive the care and attention that these products received. This is why Chrysler is in the mess that they are currently in; you have to cover all your bases and execute all your products at a high level to ensure your longevity and market share. This is why I believe that Chrysler was severely mismanaged by Daimler.

It does seem like everyone wants to jump on the former "Big Three" about this issue and stay oblivious to the fact that Toyota has actually managed to do the same thing trying to nudge its way to number one. Somehow, Toyota has been able to dodge the bullets so far. Maybe after they obtain their goal of reaching (and maintaining) their number one status, the media and naysayers will try to expose some of their shortcomings. I understand that the company is fearful of a backlash; it seems that it goes with the territory of being number one. Someone will try to discredit your right to be there. I think it's unfortunate that it happens, but it will be nice to see the heat on Toyota for a change instead of one of the home team players.

I guess that pretty much sums up this topic, folks. Nicely executed and straight to the point. Goodnight one and all.

Let's just face the cold, hard facts. Chrysler was beginning to redefine itself in the 90's, but then hit a brick, staunch stone wall called Daimler. The 2008 minivans were engineered and designed under this evil, blood sucking regime. It will take Cerberus a lot of time, money, and ingenuity to turn the tattered remains of this severely derailed company back into a genuinely competitive automaker. We will have to be patient and try to endure the hideous products unleashed upon the unsuspecting buying public by this wicked German dictator. Hopefully, this period will be brief and Cerberus will ensure that the sun will shine brightly on the Chrysler name once more. It's just a shame that Chrysler must look for redemption and renewal from the three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell. Isn't it ironic, don't cha think. I have relatives that own a 2007 Chrysler Town & Country who said that they won't go near the 2008 redesigned minivans because of their dated, grotesque exterior and interior appearance. They have quite a few kids and definitely fall in this vehicle's target demographic. Their opinion was formed after thoroughly investigating a nicely equipped model at the dealership. I understand that minivans are not necessarily a style driven auto segment, but even adults who value utility/substance over style don't want to be seen in an oversized, lackluster metallic box with coordinating Rubbermaid interior appointments. I know Chrysler still owns this segment, but there is no need to take it for granted and risk losing even more overall market share. Swivel N Go and other available gimmicks don't necessarily serve as replacements or distractions for haphazard exterior design or second rate interior appointments.

It's great to know that the General finally realizes that it has an asset in Buick. Now I would like to see a little less talk and a lot more action with the new products. Buick (and Pontiac for that matter) desperately need them.

I have to admit that I am not a big VW fan, but this thing is one ugly box. I think the trio of minicar concepts that GM introduced at the New York Auto Show in April looks much better than this odd contraption. If I was in the market for this type of vehicle (which I never intend to be), I would much rather have one of the GM concepts (if they would ever decide to bring them to market).

I wouldn't put too much faith in this picture. It looks like a bad chop job. I would hope that Chevrolet's version has more differentiation from Saturn's and GMC's versions than what this picture suggests. GM has done pretty good lately in differentiating products (except where Pontiac is concerned, but I am looking at the G5 and Torrent as stop gap measures). I would hate to see them slip back into the lazy badge engineering habits they have utilized in the past. I don't see any harm in Chevrolet, GM's volume division, having a crossover on the Lambda platform as long as it doesn't look like the other Lambda products. I would hope that the rather long gap between the introduction of the Enclave and the Traverse means that the Traverse will receive somewhat unique exterior and interior designs. Let's hope for the best, anyway.

Good luck to Cerberus and Chrysler LLC. Daimler left you with quite a hideous mess. I hope you can restore this once proud American car corporation back to its former glory. I think a lot of tweaking needs to be done to all three brands' product portfolios to properly define and position each brand. I think all three brands have lost their focus and are offering products that are out of step with the intent and purpose of the brand. The brands should have products that represent their images: * Dodge: affordable, sporty mainstream brand. * Jeep: true off road vehicle niche brand. * Chrysler: true near luxury niche brand. I think Chrysler is probably the brand with the most damaged and derailed image.

Great news if it's true! I can't wait to see all three. I hope GM does this historic brand justice with these new products. From the little I have seen and read so far, I have high hopes. I believe GM will keep the compact and midsize sedans front wheel drive (offering all wheel drive would be a nice upgrade for these cars). The large sedan is supposed to be rear wheel drive. I wonder if they should also keep a large front wheel drive sedan in the lineup for the traditional dedicated Buick customer who has become accustomed and may actually prefer a large front wheel drive sedan. I know Buick is trying to capture a younger demographic, but is it wise to totally ignore a demographic that has kept the brand alive in the U.S. for so long? Maybe they should position the large rear wheel drive sedan as the flagship model and have the large front wheel drive sedan positioned a step lower for the traditional mature Buick loyalist (all wheel drive will be a nice upgrade for this car also). The only problem is where to find the platform. With the Cadillac DTS going out of production (which it really should; I believe this car damages Cadillac's aspirations), there will no longer be a platform mate for a large front wheel drive Buick. I would look into the demographics to see if there is a tangible case to keep a large front wheel drive car for Buick. Customers who prefer this format will only have the Toyota Avalon, Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable/Lincoln MKS, and Hyundai Azera/Kia Amanti to shop in this segment. I think the next Riviera should also be a rear wheel drive model. It could give Buick more of a luxury/performance image to lure in a younger demographic. I also would like to see Buick get a smaller five seat crossover to compliment the Enclave. Basically, this is how I see a future Buick lineup: * Skylark or Century: compact FWD/AWD drive sedan. * Regal: midsize FWD/AWD drive sedan. * LeSabre or Lucerne: large FWD/AWD sedan (if there is a market to keep it). * Park Avenue or Electra: large RWD flagship sedan. * Riviera: RWD coupe and convertible. * Rendezvous or Rainier: midsize FWD/AWD crossover (redesigned on the Theta platform with "mini-Enclave" styling). * Enclave: large FWD/AWD crossover. It will be interesting to see what unfolds. I would love to see a Buick renaissance in the United States.

I think that this is a good sign. It shows that Cerberus is serious about shaking things up at Chrysler LLC. I hope they can turn around the mess that Daimler made of this once great American car corporation. I am hoping to see great things from Chrysler LLC once the dust settles and the new regime has time to implement some changes.

Wow! It looks like GM is pretty serious about restoring Buick's near luxury status. If it can properly execute these interior design proposals, then I think Buick will have competitive products in the near luxury market. I have high hopes for these future products and the future of the Buick division. The Enclave was a giant leap in the right direction. Let's hope Buick/GM can keep the momentum going. I hope they drop the LaCrosse name, though.

I still think the 2008 Malibu blows the doors off this thing in the styling department. It's o.k. for what it is, but I don't think I would seriously consider buying one.

The current Malibu has the looks and feel of a rental car queen and the price tag to match. I don't think the pricing of the 2008 Malibu is out of line for what the car is offering. As far as the competition, I think this car blows the doors off most of the rest of the midsize segment. Other than the odd shaped taillights (4 simple round units would have worked just fine), this car's design has a smooth, tailored, upscale look that really makes it stand out in the crowd. The oddly designed 2008 Honda Accord already looks dated. The Camry's design is not quite as odd as Honda's, but I just don't find it as appealing as the 2008 Malibu's beautiful design. I think Chevrolet and the General has a winner on their hands. I can't wait to see an actual production version.

The timing for this vehicle is appropriate. It is nice enough, but it doesn't really hit high on the excitement meter. Then again, it is a people mover and isn't designed to set the automotive world on fire. I think it could find a small audience here and augment Honda's sales performance. The smaller, original Odyssey was introduced at a time when gas was cheaper and bigger was mostly considered better. The auto climate has changed quite a bit since those "good old days".

Wow! The armor appears to be thinning rapidly and is definitely tarnished. I don't want to see Toyota fall on its face any more than I would any other auto manufacturer. I do have to agree with other forum members who said that had this been any other car corporation, the media would have been all over it.

I saw a profile shot; it didn't help. This is just a very uninteresting car. It looks like an updated Audi and that is it. It will satisfy existing Audi fans but I am not quite sure it will win over very many new fans. The new car does appear quite a bit larger in the photos than the current model. I'm not sure it is actually that much larger or if it is an optical illusion of the styling.