caddycruiser

Uh, excuse me, but the insanity has gone farther than that for quite some time--back in June of '04, we got a $5,000 rebate on our '04 Suburban, and NOW, you can pick up a leftover '05 Suburban with a $6,000 rebate. Then again, these trucks are the best examples of insane overpricing. Only a couple years ago, the MSRP of a fully-optioned, 4wd beast of a Suburban was in the low 40's. Now, the same Suburban, save some cheaper leather, new wheels, and a few different buttons on the dash can hit $54k, and near $58k in new LTZ trim--and remember, these are still 1/2-ton models. :o Saying "Total Value Promise" is getting damn old and, because they can't drop the prices of existing models, pointless to continue harping on. Carve as big of a chunk out of the MSRP's as used to be reserved for a rebate, cut even more out if it's a big SUV such as described above, pack them with as much stuff as you possibly can, and offer a longer warranty, and you just might get some where. Hmm....sounds a lot like thriving Hyundai/Kia anymore, doesn't it :rolleyes:

Good point, because, in truth, they really weren't rushed. Actually, since they were started so long ago, that's probably a big reason why certain glaring faults exist--they started the initial stages of life in the "old GM". But, even with no IRS, there still are ways the great engineers at GM could have figured out SOMETHING, and the bean counters could have considered it. Either way, it's not a good thing, and I'll be curious to see if the longer models have ANYTHING different....but I won't bet on it. ^_^

Even more so, I think if the General were to spend the bucks to make such a system, not only would they likely do it VERY right, but the already great driving dynamics would probably march straight to the head of the class in every category, not to mention makes space for a 3rd row that is comfortable AND easily made to disappear. We'll see how it goes, I guess. It may be glanced over a lot in the beginning, but give it some time and a few comparison tests and it will be a major WTF moment... :huh:

It might well be for a LOT of people, including our family as the time to replace the '04 'Burban rolls around. The big, clunky, carry out bench seemed fine back when the trucks came out in '00, since no one else had anything much better, but now, for '07, not to have at least something that folds down flatter and flusher and doesn't need to be removed is an INSANE oversight. I've said it many times here on C&G, but no matter how nice the new fit&finish, materials, MPG's, etc. are (and those are, trully, GREAT improvements), things like the still clumsy 3rd seat will put a sour taste in the mouths of a LOT of buyers, regardless. I see this as being a LOT like the situation when DCX redesigned their minivans for '01--they had the power doors, they had a great look, they had generally cool features and a comfortable interior, BUT no matter what the excuse was, there still was no fold-flat 3rd row after Honda had done it and people loved it. They were recognized for all the other improvements, sure, but still continued to be harped on for DCX making such an oversight--one they finally admitted and leapfrogged everyone else with the new Stow N' Go for '05. Wonder what GM brass will say when asked about it, or if they'll change anything in years to come. Then again, it will probably be like the new '02 GMT-360's: Auto editor: "So, why no independent rear suspension?" GM Egr: "Well, we looked at it for a while, but then decided the solid rear axle was tougher and gave us the performance we wanted, especially with the new air springs. [read: sloppy, spongy, and cheap to make...] Plus, it can tow more this way." Auto editor: "Okay, hmm, so why does the new Explorer with its IRS have a higher tow rating and a relatively comfortable 3rd row, without having to offer an extended model?" GM Egr: "Umm....."

Nope, TOTALLY different front end. The Mexican Suburban uses what used to be the '03-05 Silverado front end, and this picture above is nothing more than a chop taking a Tahoe and then putting on the front grille area and lights from an original cladded Avalanche (that's why it actually looks kinda cool... http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons//AH-HA_wink.gif ) and a basic bumper that's most likely the one stock on the Tahoe--all of that is just kind of melted together then.

Here's a few shots of a blue GTP sedan: And then a blue GT coupe:

That's just an old spy pic of a Tacoma--why the heck is there even a discussion?

Hmm....how about our nearly perfect '92 White/Red leather Roadmaster Limited with 192k on the clock? :) Quite an antique by today's standards, but even with almost 200k, feels as solid as a military tank and that it could take a beating for quite some time--these cars were beasts, and that's why so many are still around in such great shape. Really wish they'd come out with a new REAL one, that was large, refined, and still TOUGH http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons//AH-HA_wink.gif

Another thing I'm really waiting to see are the more commonplace, cloth-seated models with smaller wheels, etc. I'd assume they won't be using large expanses of textured black plastic anymore, other than small bits like mirrors and door handles, which would be a good thing. Even though I still think the whole 3rd row deal blows big time, I think the power liftgate is great and long overdue--but it should at least be optional on lower models. Chrysler/Dodge offer it on nearly every minivan model they sell, especially the lower-end cloth seated ones, and it sells at nearly a 100% clip because everybody wants it. Restricting it to only higher end, leather lined models is just dumb.

I remember reading about GM seriously considering whether dropping the longer model and then modifying the short one to be a 7-seater like the Explorer--wonder if that idea is just now a distant memory. Given that GM STILL, to this day, doesn't seem to have the best of ideas when it comes to rear suspension design and interior packaging on their ute's (like the new Tahoe's 3rd row that ONLY lifts out, due to the big straight axle underneath), I couldn't see a short TB/Envoy with a 3rd row being very nice. Either way, the current GMT-360's are very, very badly in need of a completely new and different interior, improved exterior fit & finish, and driving dynamics that aren't so soggy, floaty, and just "classic Cadillac" to drive. On the other hand, the new Explorer/Mountaineer are AWESOME trucks, whether or not you like Ford, and the driving experience alone is so much more refined and luxurious, that features like the easily folded flat and roomy 3rd row just push it that much farther ahead.

Tahoe, definately, even though I was under the impression after seeing only pics that it was more Suburban-sized. In reality, just looks like a Cherokee that's been slightly modernized and stretched a little.

Definately a high-tech appearing, but also excessively cheap looking, piece. Regardless, these few gizmo-filled GM interiors of the late 80's, early 90's were quite intriguing, in a "KIT" sort of way. Regardless, I think the drivetrain is a PERFECT example of how the Grand Prix would be thought of more highly today, if those pieces still existed--a strong DOHC V6 and a 5-spd stick. http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons//AH-HA_wink.gif That's just an awesome combination, and still would be today, particularly in a car with the size and style of the GP, even if it were a rare option, of sorts.

Yeah, that was an old chop taking "original" Avalanche front nose pieces and then matching them with a new chrome bumper onto a Tahoe. Definately looked interesting, though, and shows what the '03+ Silverado nose should have looked like if done properly.

Agreed, not a true biggie, but as the "mother" said, "I'd like it more down there because it's sportier and more carlike to use." I guess that kind of answers it--for someone who has gone to a Suburban after a line of both cars and minivans, having a "car" feature like the floor shifter is just something a lot of people feel more comfortable with and like. And, if there's already a console there to begin with, you're not exactly wasting that much center space if designed correctly--but I could see the issues of having both a floor and column shifter setup to work with both bucket AND bench seats just being another added production cost.

Still, even without seeing or driving them in person, I just thought that REAL opinion on them, as of right now, was quite interesting. Neither was stunned. Neither said anything jumped out at them. Given the new interiors and exterior style, I was waiting for something--but no. And these are moderately "car" people. Having something that drives beautifully and has a nice dash, but is still a major pain in the arse to use is STUPID, particularly to them. And ALSO, having driven or seen them in person has nothing to do with the validity of the opinion on the 3rd seat--you can tell from the pics how nothing has really changed at all, save for seat materials, and that IS quite disappointing. In a vehicle like this, maximum versatility with a minimum of user effort and aggravation trully is key--because most owners (like us) have to shift between full people and full cargo quite frequently. Having to plan ahead so there's a place to put the damn back seat is just, well, something that should have been solved at least a decade ago. No excuse. If these new ute's were everything they're going to be, PLUS went even further with nifty engineering feats of adapting a foldaway 3rd row that's comfortable AND painless to make go away would have REALLY set these trucks over the edge and probably hurt even more of the competition. The solid axle "issue" really is irrelevant, since Dodge made it work with the same system. As is, even that one design detail is still a major issue, since it's an issue NO OTHER competitor, save for the equally old Sequoia, has to deal with--Ford, Dodge, and Nissan came up with a better solution years ago, yet GM has yet to even match or catch up to the curve. Just IMHO, but I imagine LOTS of others are going to ask the same question and probably even be swayed away.

All I can say is that I am getting VERY much sick and tired of hearing this as the ONLY Buick (or any GM brand for that matter) target line: "Total Value Promise". Ooooh, really, I actually get a 4 year/50k mile warranty with that overpriced and underengineered and underdesigned new Buick....that's just amazing. Things like that should be a freaking given on a car that's "supposed" to have such stature and class, from the very beginning--it shouldn't have to be a damn selling point this late in the game. As a person with a beautiful (but still, admittedly, a little frumpy) '92 Roadmaster Limited sedan parked out in the driveway that has 192k miles on the clock, but still looks and runs like a brand new armored tank--only with huge, comfortable leather seats and good gas mileage--all the new Buicks are just pathetic, save the Lucerne which is actually one heck of a nice car that just happens to have been given one of the most boring, disproportionate nose jobs of any car today. Get me back in and believing "the great American road belongs to Buick" or "Buick... the great American beauty" and you just might have something. Until then, stick the warranty and finally standard ABS up your ever living arse, GM, and try to get to work on something people might actuallly flock to the dealerships for.

As I've said before, beautiful car aft of the a-pillar, but what the heck is with that dopey and big ass nose? Does NOT match the rest of the body lines one bit, is far too plain and undetailed for such a "premium" car, and basically just looks like a collaboration of all the wrong parts bin parts. Same issue with the frumpy dumpy Lacrosse and its front end that only looks good from about one, distinct angle. So, I'm gussing Buick's new theme is pretty nice cars with really ugly faces....first the Terrazza, then Lacrosse, and now the Lucerne....such a shame. :o Note to Buick: Hire some designers who understand the concept of PROPORTIONS and do it QUICKLY http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons//AH-HA_wink.gif , before yet another nice ride comes out in need of lipo and/or massive rhinoplasty...

These are going to be awesome trucks, no doubt, but as a current GMT-800 owner, there are still a few things that "bug" me. Number 1, and the BIGGEST one, how the heck could they seemingly write-off the whole 3rd seat issue, doing NOTHING to increase it's adaptability--keeping the live axle or not, one would still expect them to do SOMETHING to better what is currently the worst, most inconvenient and clunky arrangements in the entire full-size SUV class. After I had seen all the pics, I was anxiously awaiting showing them to my parents (mom is the one making the payments on the precious 'Burban http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons//AH-HA_wink.gif ), and finally got to this past weekend. Here's the reactions I got from "real" owners: Exteriors: Her: "Hmm, that's nice. I like the Chevy more this time." Interiors: Her: "Yeah, okay. Why the heck do they still not have a floor shifter?" (Seriously, that was IT.....) Him: "So what'd they do--just make it rounder?" Me: "Yeah, sort of, plus made everything of a lot higher quality and fit better." Features: Her: "Power hatch is good--does the third seat finally fold away?" Me: "Uh, no. They changed a lot but seem to have forgot that." Her: "What?! I love everything about my truck except that stupid 3rd seat--for as much as I paid, the damn thing should at least fold away manually, let alone with power. What were they thinking?! Seriously, who the hell wants the 2nd row to be powered? That seat is so heavy and hard to get in and out--why can't they just make it fold away and be done with it?" Me: "Um...." So, obviously, that one issue alone has already soured her on the new ones....and has already had her saying things like "I still REFUSE to buy a Ford, but what else is there?"...already writing the new trucks off as a future replacement for the '04, it seems.

Still think it's a PT rip-off, but it's a very STRONG rip-off nonetheless and a very nice piece itself. Having only seen one in person so far, I think it's definately nicer than the PT, especially after the latest "freshening" of the Chrysler which did nothing more than give it uglier wheels and headlights and cheapen an interior (that AWFUL new center stack) that has always been quite nice. Plus, it sort of has a "good retro" kind of a vibe about it, for whatever reason, IMHO. Then again, the PT did too in its first year....I wonder if the HHR will crap out as much as the PT after about 2 years.... B)

EXACTLY. Remember the pre-production Lacrosse CXS they kept taking around to shows before real production that had the EXACT same 18 incher that will now be on the Lucerne CXS? That should still be the case, the silver and chrome version of that 18" on the CXS, and then the current CXS 17's put on the CX and CXL. On a similar note, I'm yet again reminded by your sig pic of the Lucerne's one BIG flaw--it's homely, overly basic front fascia. Why, oh why, does such an overall beautiful car have to have such a bland, de-characterized nose... B)

And another thing I touched on above, that would also help Buick: HIRE SOME FREAKIN' NEW WHEEL DESIGNERS!!!!! Above anything and everything else, one problem that seems to plague Buick more than any other automaker on the face of this earth is a decent looking line of cars riding around on wheel designs that just make you wonder why they even bothered. Perfect example: These U-G-L-Y P.O.S.'s look like a BAD reincarnation of something from the 60's or 70's, something that was even ugly then: Even if the cars had to stay passionless and poorly proportioned, a beautiful set of FACTORY wheels would GO a long way towards helping out the grandma brand's cars.

In all seriousness, the one core design concept at Caddy has worked WONDERS, mainly because it's so unique (still), distinctive, and fitting of the caliber of vehicles it is applied to. Taking that into consideration, Buick, among others, BADLY needs a similar strategy to finally get rid of the mish-mash, blobby, droopy, okay, ugly, boring, dis-proportioned, etc. looks that always seem present on every new car they introduce. The Rendezvous, while not horrid, is certainly still quite ungainly and quite dorky unless outfitted in the right color and trim--but this is excused, I guess, because of the mechanicals GM had to work around (the pathetic minivans). HOPEFULLY, the new one won't suffer from such poor and ungainly proportions and strange stance, but we'll certainly see. Similarly, as was said, a perfect example is the Lacrosse--not offensive at all, but regardless of how mad it makes GM'ers to hear, it can easily be mistaken for a boring old rental fleet Taurus--just with standard fare DISGUSTING Buick design wheels and a few new chrome bits. And just like the Rendezvous, it too suffers from having to have its skin stretched over old, inflexible architecture, and looks downright weird from some views--like a nose that's too long and poorly meshes with the contours of the rest of the body, at least from certain angles. Again, HOPEFULLY, the next will fix this. And now we have the Lucerne. FINALLY, it does look like someone deep inside GM finally found a way to take an old platform and wrap decidely tasteful body lines around it that, shockingly, are actually PROPORTIONED CORRECTLY (imagine that...and from Buick :o ). The only problem is, this car too suffers, looking like everything was complete until someone said "Oh crap, we forgot the front"--having to do a quick and easy rush job and put a nose on the otherwise crisp body that seems to have taken the worst ques of other Buicks, most notably a too plain and blobby grille from the Terrazza, and headlights that are so indistinct and plain, they could have come from any one of a number of new trucks. Not a bad car, and certainly showing that they're getting somewhere, but it still could be BETTER. Taking the Velite look and maybe making it even a bit more crisp and finely tuned, and then PROPERLY applying its ambiance to every model (not just an awkward stretch or shrink job), would probably do wonders for Buick. Well that, and powertrains that actually matched their image....and weren't just basic Chevy pieces.... B)

Like I said, a lot of the "later" builds that I've seen look to have better fitting/laying canvas, but I just wonder why it was ever a problem in the first place. Convertible tops are complicated, but things like that should have been ironed out with car #1.

I understand that, but it really seems like it was an installation issue, because the earliest cars look like they have defective or already stretched out roofs, but as the build dates have increased, the defects/creases/folds in the roof seem to have gotten less and less noticeable. I guess what I was asking is why a QC issue like that wasn't taken care of immediately, rather than just let a natural learning curve "smooth things out" as more cars went down the line.

I'm curious too, since one would think there had to be SOMETHING in the works....and given how nice the Alero/Intrigue/Aurora were styling wise, it/they should have been pretty stunning.