I think adding a little wheelbase, raising the hood a bit, and shortening the front overhang a tad helps.

Edited April 15, 200817 yr by Dodgefan

btw, is that the 4-door? that 3/4 rear view gives me a 4-door vibe, but the side view looks almost like a 5-door. or maybe i'm just tired and hallucinating

WHere is PCS on this one?

TBH.. i'm not so keen on it. Its certainly more Euro-centric and therefore not suited to American tastes, but.. its a bit too bland and generic for my liking.

speaking as an outsider on the Euro market, Mondeo and the Alfa posted here are better looking, and I can only imagine how intriguing they are in person to study. I can see what aatbloke is saying about Insignia not being exciting compared to those and failing to capture sales, as a result becoming a company car. The Insignia may be good looking and well resolved, but that's my reaction to past American cars being so poorly conceived in general, when it comes to design.

in the American market our design sensibilities are improving, though we are not to the level of Europe, where fashion-conscious is normal. I agree with others here about the overall lack of distinctiveness. This is a cohesive design, it flows, and every part seems to belong, that's what I like about it. I like that it's straightforward and nothing looks like it doesn't belong. That's why I call it refined. It's classy because lines and themes are understated but just the right amount of definition and it doesn't go into bad extreme territory. However, aggressive and distinctive and something that would help sell the cars to outside buyers would be the Alfa above, or an idea that's unique and distinct while remaining classy and subdued like that one.

Overall, in the American market, this will be a standout based on quality and potential performance. it won't set the charts on fire, but it will help to keep saturn consistent. so this is not the hit Saturn and GM could use.

Edited April 15, 200817 yr by turbo200

It can be more expressive and European-looking, but overall it's a nice piece. The details are fairly interesting, and there's a sense of refinement and professionalism to both the exterior and interior that eludes the current AURA. Everything from the gear lever to the door panels to the A/C vents have been touched by an industrial designer, not yanked from some corporate parts bin, even if they do share similarities with VWs and Fords. Compared to what's available in the US market today, I'd rank it pretty high, and at least it doesn't have the "self-conscious oddness" of the Altima, Sonata, Sebring, Avenger, Accord, etc.

Mondeo and the Alfa posted here are better looking

The Alfa is a stunner. Italian design at its best. The Mondeo is an excellent car, but I personally prefer the Mazda 6.

Re this one, I think the way it appears to disguises its size is a sign that the car is well design, even if it is a little blob-like. Given GM's photography record (2-pedal manual G6 chops, and so on), I'm reserving final judgement until I see it in person.

Edited April 16, 200817 yr by ZL-1

For mid-range Insignia money, I'll take a base model version of one of these instead:

Oh wait I have to run, because that car makes me want to :puke: . I am with you reg!

PCS-

If this is what GME is going to bring to the table, let's let GMDAT design more stuff.

Opel has consistently shown that its' head in firmly ensconced in its a$$ when it comes to D-segment & lux product. It's one of the reasons why Saab is such a money pit as well, unfortunately, so both parties are dragged into the mire.

I might not want to own an Alfa, but your credibility is Zero if the Alfa is barf-worthy in your eyes. It's clearly one of the prettiest sedans on the market--and ironically, runs on the bones of old GM/Fiat ties.

PCS-

If this is what GME is going to bring to the table, let's let GMDAT design more stuff.

Opel has consistently shown that its' head in firmly ensconced in its a$$ when it comes to D-segment & lux product. It's one of the reasons why Saab is such a money pit as well, unfortunately, so both parties are dragged into the mire.

I might not want to own an Alfa, but your credibility is Zero if the Alfa is barf-worthy in your eyes. It's clearly one of the prettiest sedans on the market--and ironically, runs on the bones of old GM/Fiat ties.

That Alfa looks as if it's been sucking on a lemon, or perhaps something else! What happened to the positive enzl I left here? :rotflmao:

Edited April 15, 200817 yr by Pontiac Custom-S

Oh wait I have to run, because that car makes me want to :puke: . I am with you reg!

That's not exactly surprising, either.

alfa makes some of the best designs on the planet. that sedan is one of the best looking sedans on the planet. strong, simple, mean, classy, sporty, purposeful, athletic....all in one.

I prefer minimalist design, when a car inherently makes so much sense you have no choice but to be turned on.

Edited April 15, 200817 yr by turbo200

I was really hoping GM could score Alfa when they were in the whole Fiat mess.

Then they could dump that $h!ty swedish baggage, umm, what was it's name again? Oh yeah, SAAB! And concentrate on a brand worth developing.

That Alfa looks as if it's been sucking on a lemon, or perhaps something else! What happened to the positive enzl I left here? :rotflmao:

You would not know a truly good design if it came right up behind you then bit you right on your hairy ass!

Edited April 16, 200817 yr by YellowJacket894

You would not know a truly good design if it came right up behind you then bit you right on your hairy ass!

Well I do know this, a good design will never be one of yours!

Well I do know this, a good design will never be one of yours!

From your responses to people and level of automotive knowledge displayed, I'd pitch you at the same age as regfootball - 16 at the very most, and that's being generous.

From your responses to people and level of automotive knowledge displayed, I'd pitch you at the same age as regfootball - 16 at the very most, and that's being generous.

Once again you would be wrong! :AH-HA_wink:

Well I do know this, a good design will never be one of yours!

aatbloke PCS

Well I do know this, a good design will never be one of yours!

Like you are any judge of talent or ability.

Better yet, do you have any redeeming and impressing talents or abilities of your own? I am leaning to no.

Edited April 16, 200817 yr by YellowJacket894

Once again you would be wrong! :AH-HA_wink:

Indeed - I dare say 10 is a far more accurate figure. If however, in the unlikely event you are over 16, then you have a great deal of maturity to develop and a great deal to learn about the car industry.

Like you are any judge of talent or ability.

Better yet, do you have any redeeming and impressing talents or abilities of your own? I am leaning to no.

If PCS does ever display any, do let me know. But I won't hold my breath.

If PCS does ever display any, do let me know. But I won't hold my breath.

Me either! :rotflmao:

Like you are any judge of talent or ability.

Better yet, do you have any redeeming and impressing talents or abilities of your own? I am leaning to no.

I play the Kazoo! :AH-HA_wink:

I play the Kazoo! :AH-HA_wink:

Well, don't quit your day job, all I will say! :AH-HA_wink:

Guys, cool it with the personal attacks. You know who you are. Don't make me break out the

Guys, cool it with the personal attacks. You know who you are. Don't make me break out the

If someone is brassneck enough to try and preach to me about the state of Vauxhall when it's evident they have little clue about the company, I'll equally tell them what I think. It may not be flattering, but it will be civil and it will be unambiguous.

Cheers.

As for the car - I hate to say that I'm let down by the exterior. It has that melted, slightly bloated look of the Avalon coupled with the overall droopy look of the CLS. And the side scuplting does nothing for the car. Inside, it's "generic European car interior in a can". Not my cup of tea, but it is nice.

I'd much rather take the Invicta/LaCrosse/whatever-they-call-it.

As for the car - I hate to say that I'm let down by the exterior. It has that melted, slightly bloated look of the Avalon coupled with the overall droopy look of the CLS. And the side scuplting does nothing for the car. Inside, it's "generic European car interior in a can". Not my cup of tea, but it is nice.

I'd much rather take the Invicta/LaCrosse/whatever-they-call-it.

That's a very good take on the Insignia. It's just not unique enough to cut it in the European D-segment, especially considering the strides some of the competition has recently made.

Guys, cool it with the personal attacks. You know who you are. Don't make me break out the

I offer my apologies if I have been out of hand, Z.

It is just I do not come here to be bullied or be subjected to one man's vendetta.

Again, my apologies.

The more I consider this car, the more I think ION.

This one's a dud, and DOA as a Saturn.

Well, you guys bawled and moaned until you got an "integrated" radio. Now you got it, and it's just as brainlessly complicated looking as any freaking Honda

Wow the radio's a button-o-rama!

DING DING DING. Complicated. Integrated. Design. I'll keep the black tie stereo, which got favorable reviews by the brits in the BLS. My Grandparents had a hard enough time figuring out the stereo in their new Impala with the tabbed favorites and whatnot, give them this and they'd cause a 52 Car Pile Up. Hell, give this to me and I'll cause an accident trying to figure it out.

DING DING DING. Complicated. Integrated. Design. I'll keep the black tie stereo, which got favorable reviews by the brits in the BLS. My Grandparents had a hard enough time figuring out the stereo in their new Impala with the tabbed favorites and whatnot, give them this and they'd cause a 52 Car Pile Up. Hell, give this to me and I'll cause an accident trying to figure it out.

I think the interior looks great, as for buttons...if you own it you will learn how to use it.

We are supposedly the most intelligent species on the planet, you'd think a few extra buttons wouldn't be enough to defeat our brains. BE SMARTER THAN THE BUTTONS!

I don't even think the buttons are an issue. The layout and design just blows. I can't believe I am saying this, but I think I'd prefer the $h!ty corporate unit over this one...

Quoting oneself is generally tacky.

It isn't about the number of buttons, but rather the layout, size and placement of the buttons. A well-designed radio has been known to rocket a car to the top of consumer consideration because it's user-friendly. Complicated setups are the bane of the owner's existence, day in and day out. Why? EVERYONE uses the radio.

It's too bad, because GM generally makes some of the best radios in the business. Their nav interface has won accolades in the press for its visual appeal and ease-of-use.

My only consolation is that GM usually outfits cars with different radios for different regions. Hopefully that will be the case here.

Quoting oneself is generally tacky.

Am I supposed to care?

At any rate, even if the layout isn't the best, it can be learned. You pretty much have to learn it if you're going to spend any extended period otime with any car. Once you learn it it becomes second nature and the bitching magically stops, usually anyway.

Edited April 16, 200817 yr by Dodgefan

At any rate, even if the layout isn't the best, it can be learned. You pretty much have to learn it if you're going to spend any extended period otime with any car. Once you learn it it becomes second nature and the bitching magically stops, usually anyway.

I drove my M-Class for 6 years and still had to take an undue amount of time away from the road to push the correct button for a function. When you have a sea of buttons, all sized and shaped alike, you're really not going to get it sorted out and "learned" like if you had groups of similar functioning buttons sized and shaped differently in a logical manner.

For example:

BAD:

BETTER:

BEST:

OMG BESTESTxINFINITI

OMG BESTESTxINFINITI

HAHAHA!! Too funny!

OMG BESTESTxINFINITI

Anyways, I like buttons since I'm not stupid and therefore able to learn the functions. *nods*

I drove my M-Class for 6 years and still had to take an undue amount of time away from the road to push the correct button for a function. When you have a sea of buttons, all sized and shaped alike, you're really not going to get it sorted out and "learned" like if you had groups of similar functioning buttons sized and shaped differently in a logical manner.

For example:

BAD:

BETTER:

BEST:

what are the differences among the three. besides obvious stylistic differences SRX only lacks one key feature, the MB button pad, which also helps the SRX look more basic, albeit less cluttered. Both MB looks are clean and busy. I know this sounds shallow, but more buttons also is high tech, high end, less basic. I always found the STS bland because it had flat, uninteresting surfaces, but also because the driver controls, the interaction points suck in thier design and feel, but also in their abundance, where other cars can feel like they have many different systems to play with.

as for the MBs, the only differences are stylistic, aside from the buttons to the left of the screen which you could argue are more complex in the newer version, along with the lesser present and less straightforward HVAC controls. the design differences in these don't radically affect the layout.

if you were using this car on a regular basis, I think you would have enough time to master the MB's controls.

Edited April 16, 200817 yr by turbo200

Buick pronounces their new interiors will lower the occupants' bloodpressure. Hopefully, that means fewer buttons. A luxury car should take care of its driver in an effortless manner, not cause anxiety or fear of having an accident resulting from trying to adjust the stupid radio, for God's sake.

if you were using this car on a regular basis, I think you would have enough time to master the MB's controls.

6 years?

I always found the STS bland because it had flat, uninteresting surfaces, but also because the driver controls, the interaction points suck in their design and feel, but also in their abundance, where other cars can feel like they have many different systems to play with.

I prefer minimalist design, when a car inherently makes so much sense you have no choice but to be turned on.

make up your mind please...

DING DING DING. Complicated. Integrated. Design. I'll keep the black tie stereo, which got favorable reviews by the brits in the BLS. My Grandparents had a hard enough time figuring out the stereo in their new Impala with the tabbed favorites and whatnot, give them this and they'd cause a 52 Car Pile Up. Hell, give this to me and I'll cause an accident trying to figure it out.

Typical. European. Design. Seriously, European interiors typically have a lot of buttons. For example:

Opel Antara

Opel Vectra

Ford Kuga

Peugeot 207

Peugeot 308

SEAT Altea

Mercedes C Class

And so forth. The point is, those nutty Europeans like their buttons. I'd anticipate an Americanized version would have fewer buttons, but feedback from the buttonlicious new US-spec Accord could possibly affect whether any changes are made.

-RBB

those nutty Europeans like their buttons

HEY!!! I like playing with buttons!

Quite a disappointing vehicle, especially considering the high-quality product the GM Europe has turned out over the last decade.

Can't say I like the exterior one bit...and the interior is equally disappointing - dare I say...Korean?

Don't know what happened to GM Europe's sense of style, but apparently, it took a long vacation during this vehicle's development.

make up your mind please...

again, I have to reiterate a point, the number of buttons you use are not a design choice, the only design choice involved is how you're going to shape them [and where to place them, though this is more a matter of functionality]. minimalist design =/ minimalist features. with minimalist design you have a perfect example in BMW, right the 3-series, which some refer to as stark or austere. it's simple, straightforward, but those are design comments. the actual interface can be complicated or overdone without having a design that looks overdone. with the right interior color, the 3-series interior is downright beautiful. simplistic in its shape and meaning, yet not lacking depth or a stylistic approach, like you could argue of the undercooked STS interior. think of the 3-series and the STS as having started out as basic templates, with no buttons or features, just the basic shapes and themes they were using, think like that of any interior and you will understand the basic design.

my comment about the time spent in Croc's MB is that maybe he didn't spend time with it on a regular basis. it took me a while to master all the different shortcuts in my Navi simply because of practice, I didn't know how to fully use its features until i put it into practice.

dismissing the idea that buttons equals high end is why GM fails. They fail to see what works for other companies in many different ways. in the American market, it's the European and other foreign luxury makes that have seen explosive growth, not GM and Cadillac, I would say that's reason enough to accept thier strategy is a winning one and it should be dissected as much as possible. whatever conspiracies people deal out here aside, it's hard to look at a market today where so many automakers are being revived constantly and producing competent products in new segments for them, that it's anything other than the product being more successful period. that has as much to do with buttons and features as it does with design, well maybe not nearly as much as design is important, but thier both big issues.

Edited April 16, 200817 yr by turbo200

Anyways, I like buttons since I'm not stupid and therefore able to learn the functions. *nods*

And that is the best post thus far on this thread.

There aren't even that many buttons. There's probably more on your averge keyboard than any of these interiors and yet we're able to type without constantly checking they keys to make sure they are the right one.

dismissing the idea that buttons equals high end is why GM fails. They fail to see what works for other companies in many different ways. in the American market, it's the European and other foreign luxury makes that have seen explosive growth, not GM and Cadillac, I would say that's reason enough to accept thier strategy is a winning one and it should be dissected as much as possible.

One word: iDrive

Cadillac is routinely praised to the ease of use on their interface.

Can you think of an interface technology that has been as universally panned as iDrive?

If you need extra buttons to feel more premium, print this out and tape it to your dash:

I don't think it's praise. you're reading as a fan, or you're referring to the lesser reviewers. maybe going into it with a sentiment looking for good stuff instead of just reading the commentary. most i've ever read is that it's a different take that's easier to use.

the button-laden CTS design has received praise, that's real praise. when people go far to express appreciation, rather than just saying, eh this is one nice way of doing things.

by the way, if you read my quote it says 'what works'. IDrive did not, and way to pick the one thing in recent years to generate controversy, rather than focusing on all the good things that have won them the market share/sales. it's time to set aside conspiracies and excuse-making here, and start accounting for why the other carmakers seemingly always explode, always get more market share, while in more ways than not GM stagnates. Don't mention the five hits they've had in the last year, since that barely begins to make up for their entire maisntream lineup. so my point was to say we need to fully analyze what works for other carmakers if GM is ever to fully move into the light carmakers like Porsche, Honda, BMW, MB, and even toyota always bask in.

it's curious that at least IDrive has not affected sales, in fact BMW has only had increasing sales over the last few years, goes to show there are many other reasons BMW buyers will still choose thier brand.

by the way, your image shows up as nothing. ironic. even if it was there, it'd probably wouldn't refute my basic point on buttons on a dash, making a car look high end by thier quantity, function, and design...

what are the differences among the three. besides obvious stylistic differences SRX only lacks one key feature, the MB button pad, which also helps the SRX look more basic, albeit less cluttered. Both MB looks are clean and busy. I know this sounds shallow, but more buttons also is high tech, high end, less basic. I always found the STS bland because it had flat, uninteresting surfaces, but also because the driver controls, the interaction points suck in thier design and feel, but also in their abundance, where other cars can feel like they have many different systems to play with.

as for the MBs, the only differences are stylistic, aside from the buttons to the left of the screen which you could argue are more complex in the newer version, along with the lesser present and less straightforward HVAC controls. the design differences in these don't radically affect the layout.

if you were using this car on a regular basis, I think you would have enough time to master the MB's controls.

Well, the SRX has a touch screen for many of its controls, whereas the MB has labels on the screen, but you have to press the teeny tiny buttons off to the sides.

Also, it's the grouping of buttons. The 2001 M-Class has non-radio/entertainment functions placed right next to the radio. The SRX unit does not. By maintaining some logic to the button placement, and placing similar/related functions together, with similar/related functions having similar shapes/textures...it goes a long way.

The 01 M was, as I said, an interface that even after 6 years I don't have it all down. And don't get me started on the "sized, shaped, feel-alike" buttons on the center console that control such widely-varying functions as door locks, defog, and seat heaters, and child lock. All feel exactly the same; you must look down to know what's going on.

my comment about the time spent in Croc's MB is that maybe he didn't spend time with it on a regular basis. it took me a while to master all the different shortcuts in my Navi simply because of practice, I didn't know how to fully use its features until i put it into practice.

3 years as a daily driver 24/7/365, then 3 years as a daily driver during most of December, and then May-August. Trust me, I'm very familiar with that pile. And to further make my point, my Aurora has more features and frustrates me far less with its interface.

One word: iDrive

Cadillac is routinely praised to the ease of use on their interface.

Can you think of an interface technology that has been as universally panned as iDrive?

Exactly. Cadillac, and therefore GM, often receive praise on the ergonomics of their interiors. GM also came in first on "best nav system interface" on some website I saw a couple weeks ago. Edmunds has said the interface in the SRX was the best they've ever used for infotainment systems.

It's just so stupid to throw that away on a button frenzy. I also fail to see how it's "designed" if the "design" is row upon row of identical/near-identical buttons in an approximate grid. There's nothing creative about that.

Edited April 16, 200817 yr by Croc