The O.C.

YES...it does...! Hard plastic is okay in an inexpensive car....but the Cobalt's is hard, shiny, hollow, and brittle. Look to the hard plastic in the Civic or Corolla to see how it's done! Plus, you can pull trim pieces off in your hands without trying too hard! GOD it's so cheap!!! The mismatch on the center stack plastic to the console is so big, it's easy to get your fingers behind it....and it gives really easily.... Lord I really like the Cobalt. I love the way it drives and the powertrains are pretty decent. I even like the looks...! But GM has really disappointed me once again with the shoddy interior finish.

Hate to say it....but I can guarantee you one thing.....the Rio's interior will be better built and utilize nicer materials than Chevy's "Premium Compact" Cobalt! Sad, but true..... As nice as the Cobalt is, it still REEKS of cheapness and cost-cutting inside the interior.... The last Kia Spectra I was in BLOWS the Cobalt interior AWAY! Nice, soft-touch plastics on the dash and door panels....MUCH nicer cloth seats....switches and knobs that didn't flex and didn't feel flimsy like Cobalt's

Well, you COULD say the Fiero is a FRONT-engined Citation driving backwards....... It had a Chevette front suspension and the Fiero's mid-engined rear suspension was basically taken from the X-body's front suspension/chassis. I did like the car though! Of course, the last year was the best year.....

My point exactly.....would have been perfect for GM to introduce the new SUVs. I always thought it sucked having the Detroit (and L.A.) show all the way in January. By that time, most of your new models were already announced earlier the year prior. The buff mags still hold to around the September timeframe for the roll-out of their much-anticipated "New Car" issues. It will all depend on how badly the L.A. show organizers want the "prestige" of being "the" North American auto show. Remember, Detroit was a tiny show (relatively speaking) until the show organizers decided to pursue the international attention by dramatically revamping the show and doing alot to roll out the red carpet for media and manufactuters. From a manufacturer's standpoint, media attention is a HUGE consideration when looking at where to roll out new products. L.A. already is the 2nd largest media market in the country. It's a desirable location to visit. It was major international recognition. L.A. has everything it needs to do this.....it will all depend on how badly L.A. and the show organizers will want to pursue this. Alas, maybe it's not even a big deal to L.A. at all.....the current show always gets huge attendance anyway.....and will probably get more attendance due to the revised timing alone. The L.A. show is pretty decent to begin with, but I'd LOVE to see an L.A. show with much greater U.S. and International significance!

In 2006, there will be TWO L.A. Int'l Auto Shows.....the one in January, '06 that typically competes with Detroit.....and the L.A. show in November, '06 (which will preview '07) which is representative of the decision by L.A. show executives not to interfere with Detroit in January. The new November timing will be permanent for the L.A. show. My question is....knowing that Detroit, L.A., Chicago, and N.Y are the four largest auto shows in the country, how will L.A.'s move to November affect the rollout of new concepts and production cars for the coming year? Will most of the major manufacturers still wait until January and the NAIAS to showcase everything, or will we start seeing a shift in media attention to the newly-timed November L.A. Int'l Auto Show for rollouts and premieres? My reasoning for this is the fact that NOW, there will be a MAJOR N.A. auto show (the only major show) that will be timed to coincide with the "usual" fall introduction period. (Although new car introductions now seem to happen all year long.) Looking at L.A. being the 2nd largest media market in the country (behind N.Y.).....and the largest automotive sales market in the country (even ahead of N.Y.).....and with the large number of auto manufacturers that have headquarters or design studios here....AND with the much nicer weather for all the press, media, and manufactuers to come to.... Will they start pulling intros from Detroit and moving them ahead to L.A. in November instead of Detroit in January? L.A. has the convention center and certainly the hotel room space.....plus all the culture, restaurants, theatre, and other southern California attractions for visiting show attendees to partake in while they are here. L.A.s BIGGEST hurdle, however, will be figuring out how to "roll out the red carpet" appropriately for the manufacturers and media. Something, ironically (this is Hollywood after all) they have not been known to do so well at the L.A. Int'l Auto Show. What are your thoughts...?

I saw my first one today out in Riverside and it's a SERIOUSLY nicely put together little SUV. It's an amazing accomplishment for Suzuki! This one was a 2wd base model with steel wheels but for the $20,500 msrp it still had the 2.7L V6, power windows, locks, mirrors, cruise, AC, and decent CD stereo. It was bright red with a black cloth interior. It appears bigger in person than a RAV4 and maybe a smidgeon shorter than a CR-V. Very similar to an Escape, Tucson, Sportage. Bit smaller than an Equinox or Torrent. Fit-and-finish appeared to be top notch and the base cloth interior in black was sharp looking. Dash style and materials look to be top of the class right now (YES...from Suzuki....top notch materials and style!) The instrument cluster was reminiscent of the Mazda3's....with the three individual instrument cowls. Wheel was a sporty three spoke with cruise and audio controls on the spokes. It should drive well. The 2.7L V6 is really smooth, quiet, and is a nice revver.....feels and sounds good in an XL-7 I drove so it should be pretty nice in the new Grand Vitara. Also, it gets a 5-speed automatic. Now if they'd just bring the new Swift over that they just introduced in Europe.....Suzuki's take on the MINI.

I really like the exterior.....but the interior is complete poop.... If you haven't seen it, it uses the same cheap, hard, hollow plastics as the Dakota but at least in the Dakota, the dashboard design is fairly attractive. The Raider's take on the dash is much less attractive with round air vents that don't seem to fit the look of the interior, etc. The truck's underpowered too. I really like the 4.7L engine. It's a very smooth and refined V8 but the horsepower is just not competitive in a market where import trucks are producing anywhere from 245hp to 270hp from V6s....

Stow N Go is a great feature......but this minivan architecture has been around for quite awhile....and if I'm not mistaken, the current minivan shares the same architecture as the last generation minivan (but with a new body and interior.....kinda like the Impala, LaCrosse, and GP still being based off the old W-Car architecture.) I have no general problem with DCX's vans.....however, when you drive them, they do seem to lack the structural rigidity, solidity, and handling crispness of the newer vans such as the Odyssey and Sienna.

Hopefully there will be no "body armor" on this one! It looks really good..... Hard to tell the difference at a glance....I'd say an evolutionary rather than revolutionary change....but a nice change nonetheless...

.....just curious.... Am I the ONLY one that thinks that Jill Lajdziak is about as clueless as can be....? I look at what's happened to Saturn since her reign....and I get the feeling she really has no gut instinct as to what makes a vehicle or company competitive in the marketplace..... The Aura and Sky have serious promise.....but how much was she really involved in the decision to bring those to market? I'm seriously unimpressed with her.... Alas if only Skip was still alive.....

Okay....here you go. I have been a Buick fan for quite awhile since I was a little boy and Mom worked for Buick and drove '84-'85 Rivs, etc. I was working for Buick when the T-Types were out and I thought those were great cars because they gave you Buick comfort and luxury with a better handling, sportier look and feel. I've been wanting a current Buick to bring back that feeling. As the years went by, Buick kept "dumbing down" the Y56 Gran Touring Suspension and making it floatier until lately where the Gran Touring Suspension didn't seem to give much more handling potential over the base DynaRide suspension. My last company car was a Mazda6, not really a Buick competitor, but if any of you have driven the 6, you know what a GREAT ride-and-handling setup that car has. I'm also a big fan now of BMWs and higher-end imports. I'm not expecting BMW levels of ride-and-handling from a Buick, but what I've always wanted was a current Buick that you could actually feel a bit of the road and that didn't float annoyingly over dips and bumps in the road, but still had the typical Buick ride and quietness. To me, a "good" Buick ride-and-handling compromise might mimic a "base" BMW ride setup....or a "base" Benz ride setup, etc.....understanding that a BMW "sport package" or a Benz "AMG" setup WOULD probably be too hard for a Buick. To me, a controlled ride imparts a real feeling of quality to me. (It's one of the things for me that makes a Ford Explorer feel so much more expensive than a TrailBlazer. The Explorer is much more tied down on the highway and doesn't exhibit the same slop and float that the TrailBlazer/Envoy/Rainer do that I've driven. It makes the Explorer feel like a more expensive vehicle.) Marry that body control with Buick's traditional quietness and ride quality, and you've got a really nice car. The CXS was pretty impressive in this regard considering the age of the W-car architecture. The CXL still floated too much....but the CXS was just about right. For me, the CXS suspension tuning and the 3.6L SHOULD be the base LaCrosse setup.....even if it means a higher base-priced CX.

Gee....the pricing for the SRT-8 makes a $30K Impala SS and a $32K GXP look pretty puny in comparison....

It's an interesting business venture.....and maybe it will work. However, like the article said, there is going to have to be ALOT of engineering redesign going into the exterior design and, more importantly, the interior design. It's going to take alot of work to take the DCX minivans and give them the look and feel of a VW interior. What I'm most worried about is the dated structure of these minivans and the unimpressive 3.3L and 3.8L pushrod engines. I don't know how significantly they will be able to affect these bits and pieces. However, at one time, Chrysler did have a plan to put the DOHC 3.5L V6 into the T&C. I'm not sure why they didn't carry through with that, but considering it fits into the Pacifica (based on the minivan architecture) I'm sure they could use the 3.5L in the VW version. It may not be the best V6, but it's not that bad...and the power and torque numbers would be competitive. Plus, it would avoid putting those dated pushrod V6s into a German-branded minivan.

I got the chance to compare LaCrosses at the ASIM in Pomona on Sunday and came away pleasantly surprised with the car. First, I drove the CXL (3800, base suspension) and while it was a bit floaty, it was not NEAR as bad as I thought it would be. I'd compare it to a base Camry or Avalon. The engine, however, was pretty bad. I'm no pushrod fan, but I don't ever remember the 3800 being this sluggish and unresponsive. I had to floor the gas throughout the course to get any response from the engine or tranny. Overall, however, not bad for a base car. Next was the CXS and while it didn't feel that much firmer than the base car, it lacked the float and roll the base car exhibited and was kinda fun to toss the car into the bends. The engine was a revelation compared to the 3800 in the CXL. And even though it is a DOHC, higher-revving engine, it really seemed to have more low-end pull than the 3800..... The CXS was really nice....and made me wish for a modern "T-Type." I've been mad ever since Buick abandoned that "brand." I thought they had a good thing going with the T-Types and the LaCrosse CXS is a GREAT modern interpretation of what a T-Type used to represent.

What IDIOT at GM forgot to figure out how to package a nicely-integrated front license plate on the Solstice....? (Although by looking at the car....I have NO idea where you'd put it...) I'm not sure the numbers....but I know there are NUMEROUS states that require a front license plate. I've never put one on my cars...and MOST DEFINITELY won't put one on my new C6. I even checked with the plant to make sure they don't install it upon build....and they don't....they leave it in the trunk. Here in CA, it's a "fix-it" ticket. However, they have begun patrolling parking lots (like at the airport) and giving you a $25 ticket if you don't have the front plate. How effed-up is that...?

I don't disagree with you at all....! The dutch doors ARE handy. It's just that I see why GM doesn't engineer them for the new minivans..... But then again, maybe if they did, they'd have one thing to point to about their minivans that stand out versus the competition..... Figure that....GM leading instead of following....! :o

(formerly "tannersoc") Listen, CHILL about the California comment......you don't wanna get me started about how CA is HUGELY relevent to the U.S. auto market....or get me started about the 34 MILLION people that live here....or get me started about how L.A. is the single largest automotive market in the country... I LIVE in California.....so that's the viewpoint I can bring to the posts....I can't speak for Florida, or Ohio, or New York as I don't live there.... As far as having a narrow and sophmoric view....you have no earthly idea what kind of experience I have in the automotive market so let's just get that clear right now. I wasn't saying the Astro was bad, but there is no sense in GM designing a minivan to fit that segment when that is clearly where the segment is NOT going. Just simply let the sales numbers speak for themselves. Minivan buyers are speaking with their wallets and they have NOT been buying minivans like the Astro......they are buying FWD-based minivans built off of car platforms with lift up rear hatches. That's why the new GM minivans have the features they have...and why they don't have dutch doors, or RWD, etc.

Why no roof rack on SS..? Looks maybe...? Also....I'm glad you are such an Astro fan.....BUT, compared to the rest of the minivan segment, they sold peanuts. GM isn't going to spend the money to engineer dutch doors on the Uplander (and sister vans) because the SEGMENT hasn't dictated that is a priority feature. People would rather have lift up hatches....look at sales numbers and see what people are buying.

You know....this vehicle is a BIG example of what PISSES me off about GM...! It's bad enough that they had to badge-engineer an SUV for Pontiac, but at LEAST they could have done more to differentiate it...... Try bigger wheels and tires (18's....19's....bring on some bling) and a TRUE sport suspension option. Also, what about different seats inside with more bolstering, etc...? Also.....if Ford and Mazda can offer the same small SUV (Escape and Tribute) that look similar but actually offers different sheetmetal and different dashboards, why can't GM...? Also, if you drive a Tribute, it has a firmer suspension than an Escape...

(formerly "tannersoc") You are right....it was primarily the center stack that received the most flack.... The new center stack in the Lucerne appears to utilize the same radio and HVAC controls as in the new Impala....and those are damn near spot on... The LaCrosse DOES avoid the hard plastics that are found all over the new Impala's interior....so I'm sure that Lucerne will have little, if any, tacky hard plastics.

Grand Cherokee didn't "break ground" in '05 with an independent front suspension....the Liberty was introduced in '02 with an independent front suspension....

What's the point? With new pickups coming in a year or so, why WASTE the money to engineer such a minor change when you could direct those funds to more useful measures? I just see this as a stupid waste of resources on GM's part.....good-looking or not...

That's why, in my opinion a "shorty" Express would not be a feasible solution. A better solution would have been to offer the Astro features on the Uplander, specifically the rear Dutch door design, a split, folding 2nd seat(like the old Suburbans), instead of folding buckets just to accommodate a second row table! In the design feature selection on the Uplander, the LS series does not come with a roof rack, but misses some of the other amenities. On an LT Uplander, the roof rack is included in the package with no choice to delete it! In todays gas crunch situation, a roof rack increases the already poor air drag of the vehicle, reducing gas mileage by up to 10%! Unfortunately, it is extremely cost-prohibitive for GM to engineer unique "Astro-like" features into the Uplander....unless those features were engineered into the entire platform in the beginning (shared with the other minivans.) That's why they can't just give you the option of rear dutch doors or a different, split-folding 2nd seat. Also, in today's more fuel-efficient vehicles, a roof rack doesn't really impact MPG much at all.....certainly not 10%. If you take off the crossbars when not using them, then the actual roof rack rails, running fore-to-aft on each side of the van, won't make a noticeable impact on economy.

While the Astro had its niche, there's not nearly enough demand in a heavier-duty, RWD minivan for GM to engineer and develop a dedicated platform for it. You'll never (I know...never say "never") see another Astro-like vehicle.... The Astro sold well out here in California. It was mostly bought by hispanics that loved the cheap price and the large amount of room for their larger families, etc. BUT, it was really a niche vehicle. Not enough mainstream buyers like you are willing to put up with the negatives (inefficient room, rough ride, lower MPG, poor bad weather traction w/o awd, etc.)

Yes....but have you SAT in one yet.....and seen IN PERSON the textures and quality of the plastics? If you rap on the dash, it's hard, hollow, and bittle sounding....aside from looking shiny.... TRUST ME....pictures make it look great....it's the quality of the stuff that lets it down