CMG

I just saw a commercial where the Malibu had a walkaround view, I sure hope it looks better in person. It's not horrendous, but it isn't good enough looking to draw in people driving by glancing either. Maybe it looks better in person..? I was disappointed.

And your Aurora has what "styling cues" from Oldsmobiles of past...? It's just a sketch.

Here's a snippet from Allpar, looks like the Phoenix engines are indeed slated for the Challenger when they become available... http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger.html

Yup, those are WAY better IMO. Cool shape, definitely different than the status quo.

I personally find the front end ugly. I think the "Cadillac style" front ends are the ugliest in the business, worse than alot of the much maligned Japanese cars... Cadillac front ends are NOT the way to go. At least it is "ONLY A SKETCH". Thankfully! :AH-HA_wink:

Couldn't agree more. If the Lexus badge wasn't on the steering wheel and an Impala was photoshopped on, what would the responses have been..? :AH-HA_wink: I find the interior not bad at all, the "wood" I would have to see in person, some pics it looks overwhelming, and the way the dash inlay tapers off isn't my favorite, but overall it's not bad at all IMO. So shoot me!

I sense it's already in the history books around here.... LOL I guess I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like National Enquirer got the scoop on this. I've seen so many rumors on the internet they all are becoming a blurrrr....... :AH-HA_wink:

Attack the POST, not the POSTER. :AH-HA_wink: I never posted I wished Chrysler was worth ANY "amount", I could care less what Chrysler- or whoever owns it at the time- is worth, and could care less if they are worth $39 or 39 trillion. You are "ill informed".... :AH-HA_wink: Now.... Let's get back on topic, and stop the insults!

I did. I was responding to YOUR ill-informed statements. Pointing fingers at other car manufacturers that had NOTHING to do with the thread....

LOL Does that make any sense? I would rather a car company ( ANY car company) have a loss of ZERO dollars, or a "worth" of ZERO dollars, than a $39,000,000,000 third quarter loss. hahaha Think about it... :AH-HA_wink:

"The media" doesn't have to try toooooo hard to "spin" anything when there's a THIRTY NINE BILLION DOLLAR LOSS...? $39,000,000,000.00 :AH-HA_wink:

I was wondering why there was no "body bra", or camo....

I thought it was 80-something days until they came out....? Somebody is cheatin!!!!!!!!!!

Threads like these are toooo funny. "How to spin a THIRTY NINE BILLION DOLLAR LOSS".

OK guys, gather around. Here's the latest rumor...... The Canadian dollar is worth SO MUCH now that soon Canadians will follow Cerberus's example. Canada is poised to buy the entire United States, pick out whatever Canadians find useful, and toss the remainder to the dogs. I heard it on the internet. It MUST be true!!!!!!

The classic musclecar look was done pretty successfully with the new Mustang IMO. It came off well. I haven't seen a Challenger in person, but the people who HAVE seen them in that tent showing in Vegas or wherever it was had nothing to say but rave reviews. I think the Challenger will be pretty successful if it's priced right. I'm not a big fan of the Camaro concept, and I'm sure the production version will change even more than it already has from the concept. I don't find the Camaro concept to truly be a "retro" look, it's more "reminiscent" IMO. It too will sell if priced right. As far as "plain square", I'm not sure what you are talking about. The new Cadillacs are by far more "plain square" than any of the three concepts/cars you mention..? I think the styling is aggressive, with ALOT of personality. If you find the old original cars "boring" then I think you need to re-think. The sea of SUVs, minivans and bland sedans nowadays are far more "boring" than anything of 35-40 years ago.

+1 + everybody here over 35 years old who can see the direct resemblance to a 70 Cuda.... :AH-HA_wink: LOL

Not sure. I wasn't paying attention...... :AH-HA_wink:

OK. Which "real world" was THAT??!?! LOL And- I cannot believe I overlooked the Quad4s!

*raises hand* OhOhOHH!!!!! I've owned a few of the nasty ones myself! LOL I've got to give credit where credit is due.... *Chevy Citation and it's other GM bretheren were bland terrible little cars that never had the success of even the bland K car rivals. *ANY Chevy minivan. Terrible to drive compared to the other minivans... The Astrovans were NOT a nice vehicle to drive. Dustbuster Pontiac Vans had an added styling repulsion too. *Pontiac Fiero (sorry Viper). It came out to alot of expectations and floundered terribly. By the time changes were made to make it liveable it was cancelled, GM cut their losses and ran. *Geos were less than stellar mechanically. *Vegas/Astres had engine problems etc, but they WERE also entry level cars, the fit and finish of a cheap 70's car shouldn't have high expectations IMO. *Cadillac's 4-6-8 deserves an honorable mention. *Toyota / Nova was a low point that should never have happened IMO. *Pontiac Aztec. From a styling standpoint it's a shining example of how to NOT sell a vehicle. If the looks were anywhere near acceptable the Aztec might have had a chance. The looks were disasterous. *First generation Avalanche. Body cladding made it look terrible. Take a look at the NEW Avalanche in comparison, it's an absolute beauty beside the original. Good case for "improvement" IMO....

LOL Good call, but what did you expect from a pic tagged "sport compact"..? :AH-HA_wink:

Nope, that's the competition he just incinerated....

Hahaha HUH??? Try 1970 Barracuda...? LOL It's NOT a production bound concept from Chrysler from what I hear, it's just a cool looking car idea on display.

Another mix of fairly ugly while being fairly bland, wrapped in an unexciting cloak.

I wouldn't say it's "attractive", but I would say it ain't in the same ballpark as an Aztec. From ANY angle, where paint shows anyways.... :AH-HA_wink: LOL