cire

Bring it! It's about time that a U.S. company had a competitive product in this segment (Oops! I forgot about the Aveo and upcoming Chery/Dodge A1. Yeah, right! Actually, the Aveo might not be that bad; I haven't actually given it much of my attention.). What great competition for the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio!

I like all three. It's great to see GM actually taking an interest in this segment (hopefully, it is not all a smoke and mirrors gimmick that will never see the light of day; much like the Sixteen and Velite). Of the three the Groove is my favorite. The Trax design is great too, but I hate the two tone paint job. The Beat is okay, but I think the styling theme was carried out better on the upcoming redesigned Mazda2 (that said, I will admit that I am a bit partial to Mazda and four door vehicles). I think there is a place in today's gas conscious society for at least two, if not all three, designs (I'm sure people shopping in this segment would like to have choices too). I hope they don't pull a Chrysler trick and show us a great vehicle (the Hornet Concept) and then offer a modern day Yugo/Hyundai Excel as a product (Chery A1).

I think the 2008 Malibu has a great design and I can't wait to see it in person. I do agree that the tail light design needs to be fixed (I agree with the person who proposed the idea of making the tailights more like the Cobalt coupe and Corvette; four round units); other than the tail lights, I think it is a homerun for Chevrolet. I would have never considered the last two generations of the Malibu when shopping for a midsize sedan (unless I needed a cheap rental car); in fact, this is the first sedan from Chevrolet I would want to be seen driving in period. I hope this is a sign of greater things to come from the brand. I think of the former big 3 U.S. corporations, GM is trying the hardest to turn itself around. I just hope GM doesn't get lazy again and starts to believe that the efforts it has made will be enough to keep it competitive. While the Enclave, Aura, Solstice, Sky, Acadia, 2008 Vue, and 2008 Malibu are gigantic steps forward, the competition will not let these wonderful vehicles stay relevant long. GM will want to keep looking to the future and continue to improve on the terrific new image it has created for itself.

I guess I am in the minority; I like the exterior design of the 2007 Altima. How unfortunate that this great looking car (for a mainstream midsize sedan) has such a disturbing defect. I do agree with many of the posts on this topic: I believe there is more going on than what has been released to the public. I hope Nissan isn't covering up something more complicated with what I think has been a pretty lame explanation so far. Can any of these corporations be trusted?

First, the good views. I am proud of Chrysler for continuing to offer a product in a field that they originated and had much success in since the 1980's. I agree that with ever increasing energy costs, it was wise for Chrysler to stay in a market that might become increasingly more important due to continuing energy concerns. Now the bad views. The design of these vans looks like an evolution of the 1991-1995 version. There is not a lot here in these photos that would make me consider this product over a Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest, Hyundai Entourage, or Kia Sedona. Although there are some nice touches here and there and some innovative features, I just don't find the exterior or interior design appealing enough to steer me away from the competition. I find this even more disturbing when I read that these minivans were designed by the same man who created the beautiful 300 sedan. When you have a clean sheet of paper to come up with something great, why is Chrysler coming out with so many hideous products lately? I also believe they should rethink this product for the Chrysler brand portfolio. The corporation needs to reposition their brands to be distinct and relevant. Chrysler needs to evolve into a true near luxury brand. A minivan does not fit into the image of a near luxury brand; no other near luxury brand offers a minivan (Buick wisely has just left this market). I believe that Dodge should be the only Chrysler brand to carry a minivan. The Town & Country model name could then be applied to an upmarket crossover or wagon that better fits in with Chrysler's role as a near luxury brand. If a customer wants a more luxurious minivan, then offer trim/options or an upper trim level for the Caravan. As soon as the 2008 models run their course, Chrysler should leave the minivan market and the remaining Dodge Caravan should be given a sportier redesign that fits in better with the brand's sporty image.

I guess this means that the Hornet concept will not become a reality. I was hoping that Chrysler's deal with Chery would give Chrysler the means to profitably bring the Dodge Hornet to market. I believe that would have been a vehicle that would be able to grab the attention of the youth market and provide continuity with the Dodge lineup. The Chery A1 is not the car that will help Dodge attract buyers of the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, Chevrolet Aveo, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, or the Scion lineup. The Chery A1 reminds me of Yugos and Hyundai Excels from the late 80's. Chrysler should have just signed a distribution deal with Chery to sell the A1 as a Chery through its Dodge dealerships and developed the Hornet (with Chery's assistance) to sell at a later date as a Dodge product. If this action is any indication of the direction the company is going under Cerberus, then I don't have any more faith in their future with Cerberus than I had when Daimler was calling the shots for the company.

They do look better than the Corolla. I also share the opinion of most people on this forum; that is not much of an accomplishment. The current Corolla sells well due to affordability, mileage, and dependability. I would never buy one because of its styling, antiquated transmission, lack of power, and torsion beam rear suspension. It would be nice if the U.S. would get a compact sedan built on the Premio, Allion, or Avensis platforms that have an independent rear suspension and an exciting (or at least slightly sporty) exterior design. Park a current Corolla next to a Mazda3 or Civic and see how truly pathetic it looks. Toyota already has a quality reputation with the buying public, why not give us just a little bit more excitement. Another suggestion would be if Toyota wants to keep the Corolla as a mainstream affordable product with its current traits, then design a sportier sedan with the Camry's 2.4 four cylinder/5 speed auto trans combo (maybe a six speed manual for enthusiasts) and independent rear suspension for the Scion brand. This would allow Toyota to keep the bread and butter Corolla and give the buying public a sportier alternative with Scion.

It looks better, but a lot less distinctive. I was never a fan of the old version's face. It should appeal to a wider audience now that it has been updated cosmetically and upgraded in the powertrain department. I have seen some of the comparison photos in the other posts on this subject. It's amazing!: Subaru does Chrysler design better than Chrysler. I also think the rear of the Tribeca sort of resembles the new Hyundai Santa Fe.

I think the Imperial Concept is hideous and another serious mistake for the Chrysler Corporation. Chrysler needs a lot of things to get it out of its current slump; unfortunately, this is not the vehicle to fix the situation. Offering the public an affordable version of a Rolls Royce or Bentley will not change the fact that quite a bit of their current lineup is not competitive. I would like to see more Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep vehicles out on the road instead of their foreign competitors' products, but the sad reality is the company does not seem to know what direction to take to be either competitive or relevant. Chrysler needs to fix their bread and butter products before offering a product in the luxury class; a class that most people don't perceive the Chrysler brand to belong to anymore. When the company finally learns that the majority of the buying public does not want to spend their hard earned dollars on subpar interiors, outdated transmissions, and unrefined engines, then they might start to take some actions to turn their fortunes around (the disfigured lump of metal known as the Imperial Concept will not accomplish this). I believe if Chrysler could fix some of the problems listed above, I think it could eventually be a viable competitor in the near luxury field. I am not sure the buying public would ever completely accept the brand as a full scale luxury automobile brand again. If this line of thought is true, then the Imperial Concept does not belong in the Chrysler lineup. I do believe that if the corporation can fix their current brands (Dodge, Jeep, and Chrysler) and give them distinct identities, purposes, positioning, and competitive products, then maybe it could launch Imperial as a separate luxury brand in the future.

One thing Buick needs to do if it wants to compete with Lexus is fix some of the shortcomings on the Lucerne (what a dull, meaningless name for car with such a nice exterior design; I guess it would be marketing suicide to change the name at this point). The two major shortcomings of this car are the antiquated engine and outclassed transmission. This car needs the 3.6 liter V6 and six speed automatic transmission from the Enclave (the current V6 and four speed transmission are terribly outdated in the near luxury field). It could offer the direct injection version as an upgrade engine. As far as I can tell, the Lucerne is currently Buick's best seller and has a few more years left to its model cycle; why not give it the goods (engine/transmission) to truly compete in its field and finish its run in glory. As far as the LaCrosse; let's just hope the redesigned Epsilon II midsize sedan is well on its way (please change the name when the new car arrives; Regal or LeSabre would do just fine). I hope this car will have an expressive, yet elegant exterior and interior design with competitive engines, transmissions, and safety systems. It would be nice to see a great brand like Buick have a truly competitive product in the near luxury midsize class and beat the brains out of the Lexus ES, Lincoln MKZ, and Acura TL. Buick might want to consider a five seat near luxury crossover built on the 2008 Saturn Vue platform. Give it a great design like the Enclave (whoever designed the exterior and interior of this vehicle - GREAT JOB!; it looks great) and you should have another winner on your hands. Please do not give it the Saturn exterior with minor badge engineered changes, Buick deserves better than a badge engineered retread. If this vehicle were designed and engineered correctly, it would be great competition for the five seat crossovers at Lexus, Lincoln, and Acura (sorry, I couldn't remember all the meaningless letter series model names that these brands give their products). You could give it the Rainier or Rendezvous names (or as another person has suggested in these forums, call it Invicta). I wasn't exactly thrilled with the styling of the Chinese Park Avenue at first; but upon further inspection, it looks better (I would still like to see a different design for our version). If the Chinese version is the design that the U.S. version of the Park Avenue will have, please change the Impala-esque tail lights (they are fine for Chevrolet, not for Buick). This car should be positioned as the flagship car of the Buick brand (just like the previous Park Avenue). In the future, I would love to see the Riviera return as a halo car for the brand. I'm not sure exactly what configuration this vehicle will take (high end 2 door coupe/convertible; maybe a four door coupe like the Mercedes CLS?), but it needs to have show-stopping styling and great performance. I know this is not a priority for GM at the moment; but if they get the fuel efficiency issue straightened out, it would be great to see the historic Riviera name return attached to an awesome vehicle. To end this post on a positive note: if the Enclave is a preview of what we can expect out of Buick in the future, I can't wait. The Enclave is gorgeous and competitive. Again, JOB WELL DONE BUICK AND GM!

If GM can sell these two (Trailblazer and Envoy) and turn a profit, then I think they should keep them in the lineup. If they are going to let them whither on the vine and become liabilities to the company, then I say dump them. I do agree with GM's decision to eliminate all the other variations (9-7x, Rainier, and Ascender) and assign the remaining variations to their truck divisions (Chevrolet and GMC). In a gas price conscious world, truck based SUVs are out of step with the times and not needed in the company's near luxury divisions (Buick and Saab). Buick and Saab need to sell crossovers, not SUVs. If GM does decide to keep the pair, they should be redesigned on the corporate midsize truck platform (Colorado and Canyon). They should keep their current monikers (Trailblazer and Envoy) to avoid further confusing customers who have seen a plethora of model names come and go in the company's attempt to turn their fortunes around (Besides, "Jimmy" does not fit in with GMC's current "Professional Grade" marketing and "Blazer" does not sound as exciting or adventurous as "Trailblazer"). The vehicles should be 5 passenger vehicles only (if a customer requires more seats, then they need to purchase a Tahoe or Suburban). They should continue to offer these vehicles under the Chevy and GMC divisions; if a customer needs/wants a luxury version of this vehicle they can pile options on the Trailblazer or check the Denali trim box for the Envoy. If GM decides that these vehicles still serve a purpose and can produce profits and sales figures, then redesign them to stay competitive and continue to offer them in your truck divisions' lineups.

I agree with Mr. Lutz when he states that Cadillac needs a sedan below the 2008 CTS. That car definitely does not need to be the current front drive BLS sold in Europe (As far as I know, GM has not decided to bring it to the U.S., Whew!). Cadillac needs a quality rear drive compact sedan in the United States that could compete against the 3 Series and C Class from its competitors (From what I understand, Cadillac is hoping to have the CTS compete against the 5 Series and the E Class). I also believe Cadillac needs a proper flagship sedan to compete against the 7 Series and S Class. The current STS and DTS are not the right products to accomplish this task. Cadillac needs to pull their resources together and delete the two vehicles (STS and DTS) to come up with a proper flagship sedan. If Cadillac is not going to put the Sixteen into production, at least offer a full size flagship sedan with some of the Sixteen's styling cues (they could still use one of the former monikers for marketing recognition - STS or DTS, but not both). As far as the Velite, Buick needs some help. The only true competitive product they have right now is the Enclave. The brand is going to shrivel on the vine if they do not get some competitive products soon. Bring over the Chinese version of the Park Avenue (I would still change the Impala-esque tail lamps). Redesign the LaCrosse (and change the name). Drop the aging and antiquated 4 speed transmissions and old engine technology (I thing the Lucerne is good looking, but is saddled with antiquated engines/transmissions and a meaningless name). But DO SOMETHING (except bring over the upcoming Delta II Skylark - I still think that would be a mistake)! As far as the Bel Air, I was never a big fan of this design (the retro elements seem odd and out of place somehow). I think Chevrolet should focus on successfully launching the 2008 Malibu, bringing the Camaro to market, properly developing the Volt, creating a more desirable design for a future Cobalt (and changing the name - how boring), and switching the Impala to the rear drive Zeta platform with a beautiful design. GM also needs to focus on new engine technology to help it meet or exceed future government regulatory requirements.

Very interesting ideas. I am not sure if Chrysler Corporation needs to take on more brands when the brands they currently have need some serious overhauling and repairs. I think they need to fix what's wrong first before piling on more distractions. If they can actually turn the corporation around, then adding more brands might be a strategy to consider in the future. A couple of overall and general things the company needs to fix: cheap interiors, outdated transmissions, brand positioning, and sometimes bizarre exterior designs (especially the current Sebring, YIKES!!!!) When you introduce a brand new vehicle and the interior materials would make an 80's era car appear like a luxury vehicle, something is terribly, terribly wrong. I am not saying the overall interior designs are awful; just the fit, finish, and choice of materials. The interiors need to be upgraded as soon as possible. As far as transmissions, here's what the corporation should remember: NO MORE 4 SPEED TRANSMISSIONS! Chrysler needs to surpass expectations and offer more than outdated technology. The brands need to be positioned to clearly relate their intentions and purposes to the public: Dodge-affordable and sporty, Jeep-offroad adventure, and Chrysler-near luxury (after all the bad directions the Chrysler brand has taken, I am afraid near luxury is all the brand can be). If the corporation would like to explore the luxury market in the future, then it should resurrect the Imperial brand for this purpose. Finally, when the company had a clean slate to compete in the midsize segment, they blew it by introducing the current 2007 Sebring (what in the world inspired this design). The car appears to have been designed by three different teams (front, sides, and rear) who never communicated or collaborated during the design process. The designer who used a big blob of black plastic to alter the roofline to look like a poorly received recent concept car (Airflite, I think?) should be fired immediately (what an embarrassing design element to slap on a midsize car for a near luxury brand!) As far as future lineups, here are some ideas: DODGE: * Hornet: subcompact car; if the concept car can be executed properly, then the company might have a winner on its hands (especially if gas prices continue to rise); Dodge will need to find an outside partner for the platform to leverage costs as no other Chrysler Corporation brand or car will be using this platform * Caliber: compact wagon/crossover; it was a good idea with poor execution (fix the shortcomings and continue this car in the lineup) * Aries: compact sedan based on the Caliber platform; give it some Dodge attitude and none of the Caliber's shortcomings * Stealth: compact coupe based on the Caliber platform; again, give it some Dodge attitude and none of the Caliber's shortcomings * Rebel: compact 4 door SUT (truck) based on the Caliber platform; again, give it some Dodge attitude and none of the Caliber's shortcomings; maybe use design cues from the M80, MAXXcab, or Rampage concept trucks * Avenger: midsize sedan; fix the interior and eliminate the 4 speed transmission (car should continue in the lineup) * Intrepid: midsize wagon/crossover on the Avenger platform; do not let it inherit the Avenger's shortcomings * Charger: large rear drive sedan; continues in the lineup with updates and timely redesigns * Magnum: large rear drive wagon/crossover; needs to morph into more of a crossover when it is redesigned * Caravan: minivan; 2008 version is a horrible, boxy, outdated design unworthy of the brand (give it a sportier redesign as soon as possible); also drop the "Grand" ("Grand" designations are so 1980's) moniker and only offer the van in long wheelbase format as "Caravan" * Challenger: sportscar (pony car); hopefully this car will not get botched as it makes it way from concept to reality * Viper: sportscar; keep in lineup as brand's halo car; update and redesign on a timely basis * Daytona: rear drive affordable roadster; bring the Demon concept car to market without messing it up (I realize I am in the minority about not particularly liking the Demon moniker, I like Daytona better) * Dakota: midsize truck; keep it in the lineup, but please fix the cheap looking interior; update and redesign on a timely basis * Ram: fullsize truck; continues in the lineup; update and redesign on a timely basis * Durango: fullsize SUV; redesign on the Ram platform as full size competitor to Tahoe, Suburban, etc. for people who still require this type of vehicle (large families, towing, etc.) * Nitro: midsize SUV; I think the market for this vehicle is rapidly disappearing (from what I understand, most midsize SUV buyers are opting for crossovers); Jeep is the brand to serve off road enthusiasts * I believe if Dodge can give the Hornet, Caliber, Aries, Stealth, and Rebel aggressive, avant garde, sporty styling and can properly market the products to the youth population, then there would be no need to resurrect the Eagle brand. JEEP: * Other than the Wrangler (which I consider the brand's icon, I would reposition the other products to offer a more streamlined lineup that truly represents the brand); do not use anymore front drive compact car platforms * Wrangler: continues as the icon of the Jeep brand; update/redesign on a timely basis * Compass: I like your idea of returning this vehicle to the original concept Rally car design; maybe use the rear drive platform from the Dodge Daytona to leverage the development costs of the platform but add Jeep's 4 wheel drive system * Liberty: compact SUV; redesigned on the Wrangler platform as the entry level SUV for the brand * Cherokee: midsize SUV; redesigned on the current Liberty platform as the company's midsize offering * Patriot: midsize SUT (4 door truck); redesigned on the current Liberty platform as a competitor to the Chevy Avalanche giving it a similar versatile midgate function like the Avalanche; shares platform with Dakota and Cherokee to leverage platform costs (versatile midgate function and styling would differentiate this from the Dakota) * Grand Cherokee: eliminate it completely; "Grand" designations are so 1980's; this vehicle is redundant in the new lineup * Commander: full size SUV; redesign on Ram/Durango platform to become the flagship of the brand (I agree with you on this matter, this would leverage the costs of the Ram/Durango platform) * I know this lineup would make Jeep a niche brand, but isn't that what it was in the first place (before the SUV explosion)? CHRYSLER: * Concorde: midsize front drive sedan; redesigned on the current Sebring platform but change the name so the beautifully redesigned car is not connected to the horrific mess that is the 2007 Sebring sedan *Chronos: midsize crossover; built on the Concorde (redesigned Sebring) platform; a taller and more modern alternative to the Cruiser listed below * Cruiser: midsize retro wagon; keep the PT Cruiser under the Chrysler brand but morph it into a midsize retro wagon on the Concorde/Chronos platform; drop the "PT" designation and simply call it Cruiser; keep a convertible version if demand warrants such a vehicle * Cordoba: midsize five passenger front drive convertible; redesigned on the Concorde (redesigned Sebring) platform but change the name so the beautifully redesigned car is not connected to the 2008 Sebring convertible; I would also give it a distinct exterior design from the Concorde and keep all the options (fabric or folding hardtop) of the 2008 Sebring convertible * 300: large rear drive sedan (continues in the lineup); please give it a beautiful redesign when the time comes * Pacifica: large rear drive crossover; redesigned on the 300/Charger/Magnum platform * Town and Country: large rear drive wagon built on the 300/Charger/Magnum platform; I don't think a minivan fits in with the Chrysler brand image (especially the ugly, boxy 2008 version); the Caravan could be optioned up into luxury territory leaving Chrysler to use the moniker on this vehicle; please do not build it with any kind of wood siding (real or fake) * Atlantic: large 4 door coupe; give Chrysler's former partner (owner) a headache by offering its own affordable version of the Mercedes CLS (give it some design cues from the Atlantic concept coupe); this car would be the brand's flagship car instead of the truly hideous 2006 Imperial concept sedan; built on the 300/Charger/Magnum platform * LeBaron: large rear drive 4 door convertible built on 300 platform; give Mercedes another headache by offering an affordable version of the Mercedes Ocean Drive concept convertible (I understand it might be headed for production); give the car its own distinct exterior design so it is not viewed as a convertible version of the 300 or Atlantic * Nassau: 2 seat roadster; leverage the cost of the Dodge Daytona platform by giving the Chrysler brand its own roadster with totally distinct exterior and interior styling * Aspen: delete from the future lineup; I agree with you (it does not fit in the lineup in these times of high gas prices, besides the Commander would help leverage the Ram/Durango platform costs) * A couple of additional notes for this brand: NO MORE 4 CYLINDER ENGINES & NO MORE FRONT DRIVE COMPACT PLATFORM VEHICLES! Chrysler is a near luxury brand (Although I might be subconsciously pushing it into luxury territory with the Atlantic and LeBaron - oops!)!

I think the xB has the crossover crowd satisfied in the brand. How about an affordable four door coupe (like the Mercedes CLS) built on the tC platform and using the same 2.4 liter 4 cylinder engine (with either a 6 speed manual or the Camry's 5 speed automatic). This would give the brand a sporty alternative to the humdrum Corolla sedan. Give it true avant garde, sporty styling (No, avant garde does not mean "Echo bizarre"). I am not sure if a small pickup would do well or not. Maybe a modern day El Camino but with four doors and a trick rear design like the Avalanche to offer versatility? To make it powerful enough, it would probably need a turbocharged 4 cylinder or the 2.4 liter 4 cylinder offered in hybrid mode. I am still not quite sold on this idea. I am having visions of the Subaru Baja (and we know what a "success" that was! Yeah, right!) I do believe Scion needs to tread carefully. If the brand grows too much, I believe it will lose its cool factor with its target audience. This would defeat the whole purpose of the brand.

I like the direction that Nissan plans to take the next Maxima. Nissan has an overall sportier image than Toyota. I don't believe they should turn the Maxima into a Japanese Buick like Toyota has done with the Avalon. Making the Maxima into an affordable alternative to the Mercedes CLS is a great idea. To execute it properly and differentiate the Maxima from the Altima, the Maxima needs to have the following features: longer wheelbase, larger exterior and interior dimensions, a six speed automatic, a more powerful engine (possibly the 3.7 V6 from the Infiniti G37 coupe?), and all wheel drive to better handle the torque. Utilizing the CLS four door coupe styling and the features mentioned above should be enough to position the Maxima as the flagship sedan of the Nissan lineup and retain Nissan's sporty image. Now if something could be done about the current Sentra to help it fit in better with Nissan's image (Nissan severely missed the boat with the styling, rear suspension, and rear brakes; Nissan had a clean sheet of paper and this is what they came up with?)

I totally agree. With GM combining Pontiac, GMC, and Buick into one dealer network, I believe a Delta II based model would only dilute the Buick brand over here. Buick needs to retain its position as a near luxury division with a midsize crossover (Rainier or Invicta), a large crossover (Enclave), a convertible (Rendezvous or Skylark), a four door coupe halo car (Riviera), a midsize front drive sedan (LeSabre or Regal), and a large rear drive sedan (Park Avenue or Electra). In GM's brand lineup, the Cobalt (how I wished Chevrolet would change that name!) would serve as the bargain compact, the Astra would serve as an upscale foreign competitor compact (although they really should add a sporty four door sedan to the lineup), and the 9-1 would serve as a luxury compact. I believe the Pontiac-GMC-Buick dealer combo should not have a Delta II based model in their lineup unless a sporty crossover could be developed on the platform for GMC. I would hate to see the Skylark model name applied to a platform so undeserving of this historic name. I do like the idea of a Zeta based Park Avenue large rear drive sedan for Buick. The sheet metal needs to be restyled for the American market as it lacks the correct flair for the brand in the United States (especially the Impala inspired tail lamps). I am glad that China has revived the brand. I believe their vision of Buick might not totally align with our vision of the brand. GM needs to consider each product's worth to the brand before they bring the product to the United States.

My intention was to give Pontiac separate sedan (LeMans, Ventura, Bonneville) and coupe (Fiero, Grand Prix, and Firebird) lineups. The sedan and coupe lineups would not share sheet metal although the lineups would share platforms. I realize this would send GM accountants straight to the insane asylum. It would probably be more cost effective to have them share some sheet metal and model names to save money and marketing costs (Although this is kind of boring from an enthusiast's viewpoint). I also intended for GMC to become the brand for sporty wagons, crossovers, SUV's, and trucks. This would better justify GMC in the Pontiac-GMC-Buick dealer combo. Pontiac would be the sporty, performance car division. GMC would be the sporty, performance wagon/crossover/SUV/truck division. Buick would be the near luxury division.

If GM is continuing with its plan to combine Pontiac, Buick, and GMC into one dealer network, then Pontiac needs a focused vision for the brand. Pontiac should continue as GM's sport division, offering a selection of sporty coupes, convertibles, and sedans. Crossovers and SUVs should not be included in this division. All products for this brand should be rear wheel drive. Meaningless alpha/numeric model designations (G5, G6, and G8) should be dropped and actual model names should be utilized. Here are some ideas for a future Pontiac lineup: * LeMans: Compact rear wheel drive sedan built on the Kappa platform. * Ventura: Midsize rear wheel drive sedan built on the Alpha platform. * Bonneville: Large rear wheel drive sedan built on the Zeta platform. * Solstice: Continues in the lineup just as it is; rear wheel drive affordable roadster. * Fiero: Compact rear wheel drive coupe built on Kappa platform. * Grand Prix: Midsize rear wheel drive coupe/convertible built on Alpha platform. * Firebird: Rear wheel drive sports coupe/convertible built on Zeta platform. Pontiac has a proud history and should continue in the GM lineup as a pure sportscar brand.

If GM still plans to combine Buick, Pontiac, and GMC into one dealer network, then Buick must have a very focused place in GM's brand lineup. Buick should be an American style near luxury division. To keep the division's focus sharp, Buick would only sell crossovers and midsize/large sedans; bringing over a compact engineered on the Delta II platform would only dilute the brand's image in the United States. The brand should drop the LaCrosse and Lucerne model names and use some historic models names that have more recognition with the public. The brand should also only offer the six speed automatic; four speed auto transmissions are not on par with the brand's near luxury image. Here are some ideas for a future Buick vehicle lineup: * LeSabre: Midsize front wheel drive sedan built on the Epsilon II platform. Styling should be elegant and understated, much like the current Lucerne (yes, I realize the former LeSabre and current Lucerne are full size sedans). * Park Avenue: Large rear wheel drive sedan built on the Zeta platform. Styling should again be elegant and understated, but offer more flair than the Chinese version of this model. * Riviera: Large 4 door rear wheel drive coupe (similar in concept to Mercedes CLS) built on the Zeta platform. Styling should be sporty and a bit more avant garde than Buick's other models. This model should be Buick's "halo car". * Rainier: 5 door, 5 passenger midsize crossover built on the 2008 Saturn VUE platform (Theta II?). Styling should be as expressive and sporty as the recently introduced Enclave. * Enclave: Stays in the lineup just as it is. * Rendezvous: 5 passenger rear drive convertible built on the Alpha platform. Styling should be sporty and expressive. I know it is just my opinion, but the word "Velite" is meaningless to me (other than the name of the concept vehicle). Most of the buying public is probably not aware of the concept car. Rendezvous would be a perfect name for a convertible. Just some ideas. I think Buick has a proud history and I would like to see it continue in GM's brand lineup.