Jumping Off the Bandwagon: F**K RWD.. The IMPALA Should Stay FWD/AWD

[SleepWarz]

if your gonna take a cheap shot at least find the right model year.

kthx =p

[BackinBlackSS/RS]

They look the same to me.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

if your gonna take a cheap shot at least find the right model year.

kthx =p

Yes, because that really helps its "style."

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

I don't care about the drive line, I just would like to see some style.

As slick as this is... I guarantee if they produced one just like it.. sales would be very small in the year 2011.

[SleepWarz]

I sense some bitterness fen.

Maybe if you wern't such a fanboy you'd be bit more secure with criticism against GM's products. >.>

(And I'm not about to complain about a car that was given to me for free)

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

As slick as this is... I guarantee if they produced one just like it.. sales would be very small in the year 2011.

True, but I didn't say make a replica or even a retro mod. Just anything that isnt a genaric bubblecar with a v shaped trunk. (COUGH REGAL COUGH)

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

True, but I didn't say make a replica or even a retro mod. Just anything that isnt a genaric bubblecar with a v shaped trunk. (COUGH REGAL COUGH)

The Regal looks to be one of the best looking cars in it's class...




and I damn sure cannot imagine that this would not look damn nice on a 2011 Impala.,

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

I sense some bitterness fen.

Maybe if you wern't such a fanboy you'd be bit more secure with criticism against GM's products. >.>

I'm more than secure with criticism regarding GM's products...when said criticism is warranted.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

and I damn sure cannot imagine that this would not look damn nice on a 2011 Impala.,

It's too Saab-like. Doesn't fit in with the current Chevrolet lineup...and if GM ends up selling Saab, the 9-5 will end up going with it.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Styling can change slightly.. altho I don't think it would be necessary. Saabophiles would be the only ones that would kno it wasn't always a Chevy.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

BS!!!

The base Lacrosse is still slick enuff to compete with the Taurus, Accord, and even Maxima.

Slick enough yes, but the base 3.0L V6 is completely pointless and wouldn't even make sense as a base Impala. The 3.6L powered Lacrosse is more than sufficient to compete in the class, but given the fact that the LaCrosse is really a direct competitor to the Taurus in every meaningful way you have to ask, how do you differentiate the Impala enough to make building one an attractive option? It simply can't be done without building an Impala and a Lacrosse which are effectively the same basic car in different trim levels.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Truth is the BASE Lacrosse should simply be the CXL... the CX (Base) could easily be an Impala.. and a damn nice one at that.

I'll agree that the base LaCrosse should be the CXL, in fact the truth is likely that the CXL should probably be the base Impala allowing the LaCrosse to move even further upmarket going head to head exclusively with cars like the Taurus SHO. Still, the point here is that GM is obviously having issues hashing out where in the heirarchy each brand fits, largely because they want to build three large cars for three different brands on one platform without crowding any of them, but obviously there is still some crowding go on.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

starting at $27,085

Put that side by side to even the Taurus SEL and U will find that the base Lacrosse equals it and certainly betters the base SE Taurus. But I digress.. as the Impala in is what we are talking about, and BUICK should be an upgrade from Chevy in the same way Lexus is to Toyota.. Acura is to Honda

While that sounds great on paper the problem here is that the price of the base LaCrosse CX starts about where the Taurus SEL does (they're within 100 dollars of each other) In base trim that Taurus SEL easily equals the Buick in terms of standard equipment and packs a larger, more powerful, and more fuel efficient V6 that makes the Buick a bit of a tough sell unless you really prefer Buick's styling.

Don't get me wrong, LaCrosse is a very nice car, and I'll be the first to say that the LaCrosse rides on a fundamentally superior platform to the Taurus. The problem/s GM has is that Ford offers attention grabbing options GM doesn't, like the powerful SHO version and SYNC, and has a more cohesive and sensible options list overall. The fact that inter-company cannibalization has been minimzed certainly doesn't hurt either.

Your option of carving the LaCrosse CX from the Buick line and making that an Impala only serves to leave the Impala saddled with an underperforming drivetrain compared to the Taurus and without any upscale trim levels to compete with the same. Ultimately, the problem here is really that the LaCrosse is trying to play too far downmarket in CX and even CXL trim levels to fit where Buick says that they want the brand to fit. But, given the fact that the LaCrosse will eventually have an Epsilon based Caddy to compete with I understand why Buick is hedging their bets, and once again we find that the problem lies in GM trying to fit too many cars into segments which are too similar.

Right now Epsilon has the potential to underpin the best cars in this class, the platform is that good. That said, if Cadillac, Chevy, and Buick are all going to field large cars based on this same platform then GM is going to have to do a better job of sorting out who fits where in the heirarchy or they will run into problems, problems which they have run into too many times in the past and arguably even in the here and now.

[Black5thgen]

Impala should stay FWD and the G8 should return as a Chevelle, end of story.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by syr74

Slick enough yes, but the base 3.0L V6 is completely pointless and wouldn't even make sense as a base Impala. The 3.6L powered Lacrosse is more than sufficient to compete in the class, but given the fact that the LaCrosse is really a direct competitor to the Taurus in every meaningful way you have to ask, how do you differentiate the Impala enough to make building one an attractive option? It simply can't be done without building an Impala and a Lacrosse which are effectively the same basic car in different trim levels.

Man. This is getting tiresome

I specifically said that in order for this to work properly the Lacrosse would need to drop the base CX model, and start with the CXL. The 3.0L is fine for a base engine... and currently bests the Impala's base 3.5L by over 45HP. At 255HP the 3.0L would serve as an excellent base engine, altho for competitive reasons I would boost it to 265HP in the Impala... and make the Lacrosse config have 275HP as a base (this kicks the 3.0L outta the CTS and makes the 315HP 3.6L it's base engine. A 395HP Turbo 3.0L or, preferably, a 6.2L would be the mid engine and of course the V would have the LSA) The Lacrosse would have an optional upgrade 315HP, and a 375HP top of the line 3.0L turbo.

Outside of superior tuning and different styling and amenities upgrades.. what the heel is the difference between the MKS and Taurus? Buick/Chevy brand should pretty much emulate Lincoln/Ford.

While that sounds great on paper the problem here is that the price of the base LaCrosse CX starts about where the Taurus SEL does (they're within 100 dollars of each other) In base trim that Taurus SEL easily equals the Buick in terms of standard equipment and packs a larger, more powerful, and more fuel efficient V6 that makes the Buick a bit of a tough sell unless you really prefer Buick's styling.

Pricing is the least of anyone's issues... It can be easily changed... and I guarantee, that just like the CTS... the Lacrosse's price goes up year by year. Like the CTS... the Lacrosse is waiting for a more upscale model in Buick/Cadillac's line up to vacate the top spot (Lucerne/STS). I kno for a FACT... that the reason why the 3.6L was never boosted to it's potential (355HP naturally aspirated) is because Cadillac was able to sell the NorthStar at a $10K premium. Boosting the output of the V6 would have killed any pull the NS had left in the showrooms.

Don't get me wrong, LaCrosse is a very nice car, and I'll be the first to say that the LaCrosse rides on a fundamentally superior platform to the Taurus. The problem/s GM has is that Ford offers attention grabbing options GM doesn't, like the powerful SHO version and SYNC, and has a more cohesive and sensible options list overall. The fact that inter-company cannibalization has been minimzed certainly doesn't hurt either.

While I will give U the SHO in terms of performance... Ford-Lincoln-Mercury hardly has an advantage over GM in terms of performance. They HAD to have something in terms of performance because they can only ride the Mustang's numbers for so long. GM has the Camaro, Corvette Line, not to mention the Cadillac Brand. And honestly.. despite the G8's demise... it has been dead for less than 6 months. I'm sure GM has something up it's sleeve. The GS Regal seems promising. Also PLEASE don't get me started in a SYNC vs Onstar/GM thing. Onstar/GM HD kills Sync imo.

Your option of carving the LaCrosse CX from the Buick line and making that an Impala only serves to leave the Impala saddled with an underperforming drivetrain compared to the Taurus and without any upscale trim levels to compete with the same. Ultimately, the problem here is really that the LaCrosse is trying to play too far downmarket in CX and even CXL trim levels to fit where Buick says that they want the brand to fit. But, given the fact that the LaCrosse will eventually have an Epsilon based Caddy to compete with I understand why Buick is hedging their bets, and once again we find that the problem lies in GM trying to fit too many cars into segments which are too similar.

I addressed this in my first response to your quote. U are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to hung up on Platform names and seemingly not confirmed with the abilities of each Platform config. The Epsilon is configurable as hell, and I would have no problem if it were GM's only designated platform for the mainstream mid-size and large cars. The SRX proves that Epsilon-Theta can handle as well as the X5... the Insignia proves that Epsilon can handle as well as the Audi A4/A5... HELL the Malibu proves that it can handle better than the Passat.

I'm sorry.. but I'm a GLASS HALF FULL kinda guy

Right now Epsilon has the potential to underpin the best cars in this class, the platform is that good. That said, if Cadillac, Chevy, and Buick are all going to field large cars based on this same platform then GM is going to have to do a better job of sorting out who fits where in the heirarchy or they will run into problems, problems which they have run into too many times in the past and arguably even in the here and now.

So basically it's all about pricing... because I personally believe that Brand Cache should be connected to performance and comfort. Amenities/technology across the board between Chevy, Buick , and GMC. Cadillac should have everything 2 years before the rest. And let's be honest... there is almost nothing in a Lexus that U can't get in a Toyota.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Man. This is getting tiresome

I would tend to agree.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

I specifically said that in order for this to work properly the Lacrosse would need to drop the base CX model, and start with the CXL. The 3.0L is fine for a base engine... and currently bests the Impala's base 3.5L by over 45HP. At 255HP the 3.0L would serve as an excellent base engine, altho for competitive reasons I would boost it to 265HP in the Impala... and make the Lacrosse config have 275HP as a base (this kicks the 3.0L outta the CTS and makes the 315HP 3.6L it's base engine. A 395HP Turbo 3.0L or, preferably, a 6.2L would be the mid engine and of course the V would have the LSA) The Lacrosse would have an optional upgrade 315HP, and a 375HP top of the line 3.0L turbo.

I see where you're going, the problem is that this isn't about what you would do if you ran GM, rather it is about what GM is doing. To cover it again quickly, GM has pitched the LaCrosse almost directly again the current Taurus in terms of both size and pricing. There are differences, but the overall lineups are close enough that you can't realistically cast one as being in a different segment from the other.

So, we have to look at where that leaves these cars in the real world. Unless GM moves LaCrosse further upmarket, and as yet I have heard not even the vaguest suggestion that they intend to do anything of the sort, that crowds Impala on the bottom end leading to artificially limited product in at least one line or major product overlap, both of which are bad. Cutting the CX model from the Buick lineup would be a token effort at best since the rest of the LaCrosse lineup would still compete directly with the Taurus and, if Impala offered any 'upmarket' models, you would still have a situation where product overlap is an issue.

Of course, if GM did decide to move the LaCrosse further upmarket that would seriously crowd the upcoming Cadillac XTS, leading to the same problem on a different level.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Outside of superior tuning and different styling and amenities upgrades.. what the heel is the difference between the MKS and Taurus? Buick/Chevy brand should pretty much emulate Lincoln/Ford.

I would guess that the difference between the Taurus and the MKS is roughly the same as the difference between the LaCrosse and the upcoming XTS. I would argue that this creates more problems for GM than Ford for obvious reasons, not the least of which is the reality that GM still needs to squeeze a Chevy offering into a market Ford is only trying to squeeze two models into. And with this we find ourselves right back where we started, who at GM gets to be the odd man out?

If Buick is chasing Lexus then how do you justify a Buick and a Cadillac of similar size and with similar engine offerings on the same platform? If the Buick is only sort of chasing Lexus and is meant to primarily play against the mainstream Japanese offerings and the new Taurus then where does that leave Chevy? Epsilon is not a platform suited to directly fight vehicles like the S Class or even the Lexus LS, and by all appearances GM knows it. So again, we are either going to have product overlap or somebody is going to get short-sheeted. Either is a problematic scenario.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Pricing is the least of anyone's issues... It can be easily changed... and I guarantee, that just like the CTS... the Lacrosse's price goes up year by year. Like the CTS... the Lacrosse is waiting for a more upscale model in Buick/Cadillac's line up to vacate the top spot (Lucerne/STS). I kno for a FACT... that the reason why the 3.6L was never boosted to it's potential (355HP naturally aspirated) is because Cadillac was able to sell the NorthStar at a $10K premium. Boosting the output of the V6 would have killed any pull the NS had left in the showrooms.

Good enough, then what does GM do with the Cadillac XTS. The large twin turbo six GM had planned to pitch against the Taurus has been shelved and, if there are any plans to do another fwd V8, nobody knows about it. Even if there were, a stout powerplant wont provide meaningful differentiation between a Caddy and Buick. Unless the Chevy Impala is meant to be a rental special which seems unlikely, fitting three cars onto this platform without major overlap seems like a bit of a challenge.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

While I will give U the SHO in terms of performance... Ford-Lincoln-Mercury hardly has an advantage over GM in terms of performance. They HAD to have something in terms of performance because they can only ride the Mustang's numbers for so long. GM has the Camaro, Corvette Line, not to mention the Cadillac Brand. And honestly.. despite the G8's demise... it has been dead for less than 6 months. I'm sure GM has something up it's sleeve. The GS Regal seems promising. Also PLEASE don't get me started in a SYNC vs Onstar/GM thing. Onstar/GM HD kills Sync imo.

I'm glad you like Onstar, but the marketplace seems a bit less impressed. Taurus is outselling the LaCrosse and by a meaningful margin, and features like SYNC are part of the reason why. GM's challenge is still the foresight to offer cars outfitted with features and options that appeal to the customer base the car should attract to the showroom. Taurus is far from perfect, but a big part of the reason the car has been so successful is that it is nearly spot on in terms of features and options. G8 proved GM still has a bit of a learning curve here.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

I addressed this in my first response to your quote. U are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to hung up on Platform names and seemingly not confirmed with the abilities of each Platform config. The Epsilon is configurable as hell, and I would have no problem if it were GM's only designated platform for the mainstream mid-size and large cars. The SRX proves that Epsilon-Theta can handle as well as the X5... the Insignia proves that Epsilon can handle as well as the Audi A4/A5... HELL the Malibu proves that it can handle better than the Passat.

Much like GM you are far to happy to start proclaiming GM's platforms and prodcuts the best in the world, particularly as it applies to the latter. My advice, wait for the platform and the product to make that argument for you.

SRX is well done, but it couldn't handle with the X5 if you deflated a tire on the BMW. No shame in that, the Caddy isn't meant for the same kind of customer the X5 is. But this delusional view of GM products that has no basis whatsoever in reality is just ridiculous. I'm a fan of Ford among other brands, and I really like the new MKS. After driving one I think the car makes a very compelling argument for the money, that said the MKS is not a Mercedes E Class and I'm not going to go ranting across forums that the Europeans are done for.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

So basically it's all about pricing... because I personally believe that Brand Cache should be connected to performance and comfort. Amenities/technology across the board between Chevy, Buick , and GMC. Cadillac should have everything 2 years before the rest. And let's be honest... there is almost nothing in a Lexus that U can't get in a Toyota.

Camry compared to ES I would agree, but then the reality is that adding the Impala to the lineup is like GM trying to build a Camry and an ES and then throwing in a third brand for good measure. There is a reason other companies stop with two cars that are, by most measures, the same basic vehicle.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by syr74

I would tend to agree.

Then stop.

I see where you're going, the problem is that this isn't about what you would do if you ran GM, rather it is about what GM is doing. To cover it again quickly, GM has pitched the LaCrosse almost directly again the current Taurus in terms of both size and pricing. There are differences, but the overall lineups are close enough that you can't realistically cast one as being in a different segment from the other.

So, we have to look at where that leaves these cars in the real world. Unless GM moves LaCrosse further upmarket, and as yet I have heard not even the vaguest suggestion that they intend to do anything of the sort, that crowds Impala on the bottom end leading to artificially limited product in at least one line or major product overlap, both of which are bad. Cutting the CX model from the Buick lineup would be a token effort at best since the rest of the LaCrosse lineup would still compete directly with the Taurus and, if Impala offered any 'upmarket' models, you would still have a situation where product overlap is an issue.

How is this a token effort??? Even more to the point is that I see nothing wrong with certain cars competing against another car. Hell... the Avalon competes with the GS350... the Accord competes with the TL... hell the 135i competes with the Mini.

Of course, if GM did decide to move the LaCrosse further upmarket that would seriously crowd the upcoming Cadillac XTS, leading to the same problem on a different level.

Dude U seem to be seriously ignorant of the facts. The XTS will measure in slightly large than the Lucerne, and despite it being on a Premium Epsilon it will be considerably different.. as much as the Regal will be from the Lacrosse